Student Kills Intruder With Samurai Sword

[smugetsu]

Like most people, I'm pretty set in my ways and opinions. I tend to side with Freak on this issue, but that doesn't mean that ToE or CL aren't entitled to their opinion.

Truly, I wish I could tell you that the world we live in isn't a violent place and that the lack of guns would solve everything. People will always invent new ways to kill one another, so long as difference in ideology and religion, politics and other beliefs...and downright psychosis...exist. I get to spend every day I work dealing with the dregs of humanity.

I guess in a lot of ways it has made me somewhat cynical. Can you tell?

[A Thing of Eternity]

I'm not anti-gun, I'm just anti-handgun. I've done a lot of reading and thinking on the subject, and while I do think some criminals would obviously still get their hands on illigal handguns if their sale were banned, I think the number of hand-gun armed crooks would drop to so low a point, that the general safety resulting in the drop would FAR outweigh the odd situation where a citizen could have defended themselves with a handgun but was unable to own one (a rare situation even today when lots of people have a handgun).

Obviously people would still committ murders without guns, but most gun murders are spur of the moment, robberies gone wrong, or street fights that escalated too far. If less people had handguns these types of murders would drop significantly, they would be dropped to mainly knife attacks, which are easier to defend against and less easily lethal. Like Freak says about the spoons and obesety, I don't think making guns illegal would at all slow down premeditated murders, but that's not the point I'm making.

I think that the "deterrant" factor pretty much only applies to home robberies right now, and that rifles would work just as well in this case. There is little deterrant factor in carrying a handgun, because most places I know of make you conceal it - and I think that 9 times out of 10, pulling a gun is just going to make the other person MORE likely to shoot you than if you were unarmed.

EDIT: and as for the "right to own a gun" arguement - fine, you could still have rifles. No one (sane) complains right now that you can't walk down the street with a fully automatic rifle, or grenade launcher, or flamethrower, or mount a gun tourette on top of your truck. This is the same, most sane people already agree with gun control, they just don't realize it. It's a matter of degrees, not basic principals.

[Apjak]

^^^

Agreed, but guns make multiple murders much easier. I'd rather my chances in outrunning a maniac with a knife than a maniac with a gun. The 'take away the spoons' comment doesn't really carry much weight, for the same reason. All the gun does is give the person with the intent to commit murder a much more efficient way of taking out as many people as possible. It's all about containment, and giving up the right to gun ownership as a means of trying to reduce the murder rate is pretty low-down on the scale of fundamental human rights. Guns increase the murder rate, they don't decrease it, just as plying weak-willed people with overlarge portions of high-fat food turns them into fat slobs.

Dude, just walk away. Walk away. I've tried before, there is absolutely NO use in trying to convince him that a hand gun free country is safer (which it of course is). He's prepped with statistics that "prove" it (and yes, I know, we have just as many stats that prove the exact opposite, like your country and Japan as examples) - but it's a pointless arguement. He's already decided that his proof is better than our proof, as we've decided the opposite.

The deal at least in the United States isn't the Safety Statistics, it is the freedom. If you want a proper analogy to gun control from our collective U. S. standpoint think Germans and the Autobahn. Does not having a speed limit on large stretches of road make things safer in Germany, not necessarily one way or the other, but the culture of the road is different. First in there is a large amount of lobbying for Speed in Germany just as there is for Gun rights in the U. S. Accidents on the autobahn can be much much more devastating at high speeds, but it has also influenced the way that Germans design cars, their Drunk Driving laws are ways stricter than in the U. S., and lane discipline is actually policed there. Here in the U. S. as a culture legally (there is massive in house debate) we would rather let our private citizens have the right to handguns then to give up that freedom for safety. Driving really is no different. If we give 16 year-olds the right to pilot a ton of steel that can go over 100 mph, we are giving them weapons, but with rights comes responsibility. Gun control arguments to me are childish in that most would rather have the responsibility in the hands of a bureaucracy than to expect its citizens to take the responsibilities on themselves. Truly nothing's perfect.

[A Thing of Eternity]

^^^

Agreed, but guns make multiple murders much easier. I'd rather my chances in outrunning a maniac with a knife than a maniac with a gun. The 'take away the spoons' comment doesn't really carry much weight, for the same reason. All the gun does is give the person with the intent to commit murder a much more efficient way of taking out as many people as possible. It's all about containment, and giving up the right to gun ownership as a means of trying to reduce the murder rate is pretty low-down on the scale of fundamental human rights. Guns increase the murder rate, they don't decrease it, just as plying weak-willed people with overlarge portions of high-fat food turns them into fat slobs.

Dude, just walk away. Walk away. I've tried before, there is absolutely NO use in trying to convince him that a hand gun free country is safer (which it of course is). He's prepped with statistics that "prove" it (and yes, I know, we have just as many stats that prove the exact opposite, like your country and Japan as examples) - but it's a pointless arguement. He's already decided that his proof is better than our proof, as we've decided the opposite.

The deal at least in the United States isn't the Safety Statistics, it is the freedom. If you want a proper analogy to gun control from our collective U. S. standpoint think Germans and the Autobahn. Does not having a speed limit on large stretches of road make things safer in Germany, not necessarily one way or the other, but the culture of the road is different. First in there is a large amount of lobbying for Speed in Germany just as there is for Gun rights in the U. S. Accidents on the autobahn can be much much more devastating at high speeds, but it has also influenced the way that Germans design cars, their Drunk Driving laws are ways stricter than in the U. S., and lane discipline is actually policed there. Here in the U. S. as a culture legally (there is massive in house debate) we would rather let our private citizens have the right to handguns then to give up that freedom for safety. Driving really is no different. If we give 16 year-olds the right to pilot a ton of steel that can go over 100 mph, we are giving them weapons, but with rights comes responsibility. Gun control arguments to me are childish in that most would rather have the responsibility in the hands of a bureaucracy than to expect its citizens to take the responsibilities on themselves. Truly nothing's perfect.

Exactly - but this is the exact reason why arguements like: such and such a country has the highest guns per capita in the world, and almost no murders, is a bad arguement.

The autobahn in Germany IS actually pretty safe, because, as you say, they are culturally able to deal with it and act responsibly. If we tried the same thing here a ton of people would die.

Same goes for guns - the US (and Canada) is NOT culturally capable of handling the ownership of handguns. Some countries are, and that's fine, they can keep their guns. But we are not responsible so we haven't earned the right to carry them around IMO. We never will be responsible with handguns, because we're a bunch of redneck tough guy idiots, and that's not going away for a LOOOOOOOONG time.

[Apjak]

Exactly - but this is the exact reason why arguements like: such and such a country has the highest guns per capita in the world, and almost no murders, is a bad arguement.

The autobahn in Germany IS actually pretty safe, because, as you say, they are culturally able to deal with it and act responsibly. If we tried the same thing here a ton of people would die.

Same goes for guns - the US (and Canada) is NOT culturally capable of handling the ownership of handguns. Some countries are, and that's fine, they can keep their guns. But we are not responsible so we haven't earned the right to carry them around IMO. We never will be responsible with handguns, because we're a bunch of redneck tough guy idiots, and that's not going away for a LOOOOOOOONG time.

My thought is we should expect people to grow up and take on the responsibility. I can handle it, my adult neighbors should be able to. I can handle lane discipline on the highway, the car in front of me should move over when he's going to slow. Also, I want to be clear that this is statistics, gun crime is by and large not committed by "redneck tough guy idiots" even though they exist and frustrate me. It is committed by and large by urban homeboy idiots. An idiot is an idiot is an idiot, and I still would rather have idiots of all kinds face consequences rather than trade my freedom for safety. The safest place is a padded cell, and perfect freedom is dangerous and destructive. I'd like to drive myself and make my own mistakes and let others do the same rather than to have to rely on another human driver (government) to force me to ride in their bus with all the other idiots. Especially when the driver is the one that gets to decide we are idiots.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Exactly - but this is the exact reason why arguements like: such and such a country has the highest guns per capita in the world, and almost no murders, is a bad arguement.

The autobahn in Germany IS actually pretty safe, because, as you say, they are culturally able to deal with it and act responsibly. If we tried the same thing here a ton of people would die.

Same goes for guns - the US (and Canada) is NOT culturally capable of handling the ownership of handguns. Some countries are, and that's fine, they can keep their guns. But we are not responsible so we haven't earned the right to carry them around IMO. We never will be responsible with handguns, because we're a bunch of redneck tough guy idiots, and that's not going away for a LOOOOOOOONG time.

My thought is we should expect people to grow up and take on the responsibility. I can handle it, my adult neighbors should be able to. I can handle lane discipline on the highway, the car in front of me should move over when he's going to slow. Also, I want to be clear that this is statistics, gun crime is by and large not committed by "redneck tough guy idiots" even though they exist and frustrate me. It is committed by and large by urban homeboy idiots. An idiot is an idiot is an idiot, and I still would rather have idiots of all kinds face consequences rather than trade my freedom for safety. The safest place is a padded cell, and perfect freedom is dangerous and destructive. I'd like to drive myself and make my own mistakes and let others do the same rather than to have to rely on another human driver (government) to force me to ride in their bus with all the other idiots. Especially when the driver is the one that gets to decide we are idiots.

Balance between safety and freedom is obviously important, and while people tend to take extreme sides in an arguement, I doubt anyone really leans that far in either direction. Balance. I personally don't think that taking away hand guns is much of a loss of freedom at all. Almost zero IMO, but the gain in safety would be significant. I don't want to end up in an over-control liberty-less world, but this specific example is a great trade in my opinion. Some people say slippery slope, but that's BS, was it a slippery slope when they said we can't murder people because we feel like it? Or whatever other freedom we currently don't (and shouldn't) have? EDIT: humanity is always on a million slippery slopes, that is how we exist, and most of FH's points about stagnation are arguing against trying to get off the slippery slopes IMO.

I know it freaks people out when someone talks about trading freedom for safety - and trust me, I agree, and in 99 out of 100 situations I'll take freedom, but I think this is a stupid childish freedom (sorry if that;s offensive), and I don't think it's a loss. We don't have lots of other insane freedoms, like carrying grenades around, but no one complains about that loss of freedom. We don't have the freedom to rape whoever we want - that right there is a trade off of freedom for safety, but no one complains about that.

People on the side of gun rights seem to try to make this out to be a black and white difference between principals, they value freedom, we value safety. The truth is we're both in the middle, and we only dissagree on the TINIEST of degrees of balance.

This is a fun ranting conversation.

As for we should expect people to take the responsibility, of course we should! But we can't, because they won't. Most people behave like idiots, and us sane people tend to forget that and argue about some fictional world where everyone else is as sane as us.

[SandRider]

The sad fact is that we live in a world that is increasingly more and more violent with each passing day.

I just can't agree with this statement. I'll always point back to history to disprove these types of generalities. (cf, "politics has gotten so abrasive & confrontational" , and I'll point you back to the Senate floor in 1856)

in many ways, this society is much more peaceful, safe & civil than it has been in the past,
and moreso than many,many societies in history. What's changed is unending news coverage
of sensational crimes, and politicians with scare-tactic agendas.

and christ knows I've typed this out about a hundred on this forum, but y'all just ain't listening :

gun-control in the US is a bullshit, non-issue, designed to stir people up and distract from real issues.

because it would be logistically fucking impossible to confiscate all the handguns in the US.

it is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER going to happen EVER EVER EVER.

[Apjak]

gun-control in the US is a bullshit, non-issue, designed to stir people up and distract from real issues.

So is abortion which is what keeps us in (two) party politics where people are polarized to agree on all the same issues instead of dealing with them individually, and the only people that ever benefit are Lawyers and Politicians (lawyers).

[SandRider]

while the abortion "debate" is certainly used by both parties to stir up their base,
it is not the same as "gun control", because it is easy to pass a law stating that
abortion is illegal and arrest doctors who perform them.

it would be impossible to even pass a federal law outlawing gun ownership,
but even if that somehow happened, it would be impossible to confiscate all
the firearms.

for another cookie, tell me how England ended up gun-free ....

[smugetsu]

The sad fact is that we live in a world that is increasingly more and more violent with each passing day.

I just can't agree with this statement. I'll always point back to history to disprove these types of generalities. (cf, "politics has gotten so abrasive & confrontational" , and I'll point you back to the Senate floor in 1856)

in many ways, this society is much more peaceful, safe & civil than it has been in the past,
and moreso than many,many societies in history. What's changed is unending news coverage
of sensational crimes, and politicians with scare-tactic agendas.

and christ knows I've typed this out about a hundred on this forum, but y'all just ain't listening :

gun-control in the US is a bullshit, non-issue, designed to stir people up and distract from real issues.

because it would be logistically fucking impossible to confiscate all the handguns in the US.

it is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER going to happen EVER EVER EVER.

I agree that our society is more civil and peaceful than others. I would rather live here than in some of the war and poverty torn countries in, say, Africa. And as time has gone by, our society has gotten better. Back in the 1800's, if you had an argument with somebody, you'd just take them outside and you'd have a duel. Somebody would wind up dead, even if the argument was over essentially nothing.

I feel that the type of crimes is what has gotten worse, and also the amount. Of course, the amount of crime will increase naturally with the size of the population in question...as our population grows, so does the crime. I love the idea of living in a small town where you know everybody and everybody knows you...where everybody gets along and things go as they should. But I don't live in a small town...I live in a large(r) metropolitan area, where nobody really knows or cares about anybody else. I could go on a(nother) rant about the decay of our moral fabric, but I won't bore you with that. The Rider of the Sands is right about the sensational news coverage, too- I agree with him that it causes more problems than it solves. When it comes to stories about sex, murder, and violence, the media becomes nothing more than corspe-hungry vultures.

I also agree with the Rider of the Sands that true, 100% gun control will never happen in the US. Logistically, it is simply impossible. There are too many unregistered or stolen weapons out there floating around, and too many "idiot rednecks" who would rather die than give up their stockpile.

[smugetsu]

for another cookie, tell me how England ended up gun-free ....

They shipped all their criminals to Australia? (Again)

[A Thing of Eternity]

I would never say house to house style confiscate them, just stop selling them and destroy them as they turn up, and in 50 or 100 years there should be a decent drop off in ownership.

[Freakzilla]

As for we should expect people to take the responsibility, of course we should! But we can't, because they won't. Most people behave like idiots, and us sane people tend to forget that and argue about some fictional world where everyone else is as sane as us.

This is why we have legislature, police and courts.

[A Thing of Eternity]

As for we should expect people to take the responsibility, of course we should! But we can't, because they won't. Most people behave like idiots, and us sane people tend to forget that and argue about some fictional world where everyone else is as sane as us.

This is why we have legislature, police and courts.

I know, but those are reactionary measures more so than preventitive. That's one of our problems on this side of the planet, our basic method of thinking is to fix things after they break rather than before. I think phasing out handguns would be much more effective than trying to police their use.

I hate to let a few bad apples ruin it for the responsible people, but the reality is that the bad apples probably outnumber the good.

[Freakzilla]

I think handguns have legitimate use for home defense. It is difficult to swing a rifle around inside a house.

Laws against guns only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals.

How about we just make ammunition illegal?

[A Thing of Eternity]

I think handguns have legitimate use for home defense. It is difficult to swing a rifle around inside a house.

Laws against guns only keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals.

How about we just make ammunition illegal?

No, it would take the vast majority of handguns away from criminals too if they had to buy them (for a much higher price) on the black market. It would take a long time for the effect to be seen, but it would happen. That has pretty much just turned into a catchphrase for gun rights people, and the truth of it is only partially true, and mostly false.

That said, it would obviously make the handgun smugglers rich!

I don't claim it to be perfect, but I'm very confident that it would improve overall safety.

That said, better that we do it up here than you guys down there, ours would be a much easier change, your country would be nearly impossible like SR said.

As for home defense - I agree, but I think an even better defense for a person's home would be a society with an 80% or 90% decrease in handguns.


Arguing about this is great mental exercise though, both sides have lots of evidence and good logic. There's something I just love about arguements where boths sides are right.

[Freakzilla]

That's just damned sexy and I've got to have one.

[TheDukester]

for another cookie, tell me how England ended up gun-free ....

They lost a bet?

[Freakzilla]

for another cookie, tell me how England ended up gun-free ....

They lost a bet?

[Freakzilla]

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
~Abraham Lincoln

[SadisticCynic]

We should just work on inventing Duniverse style shields. Once we got that the argument is over.

[Freakzilla]

We should just work on inventing Duniverse style shields. Once we got that the argument is over.

Only until lasguns.

[SadisticCynic]

That would certainly take suicide terrorism to new levels.

[Freakzilla]

That would certainly take suicide terrorism to new levels.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

[smugetsu]

Arguing about this is great mental exercise though, both sides have lots of evidence and good logic. There's something I just love about arguements where boths sides are right.

I do like our discussion...I think both sides have managed to keep it civil, and that's an essential part of good discussion. If you can't do that, you'll never get anywhere with anybody. I may not agree with you, but I respect you, and that's the first step. Hopefully the feeling is mutual...

I will be the first to tell you that the idea of strict gun control has some merit. You won't get any argument from me on that. But looking at it from my perspective, it seems impractical, difficult to implement, and seems like it would harm innocent people by letting only proper villains have pistols. That being said, you won't see me upset because I can't go buy a .50 caliber machine gun to mount on the roof of my car (though it would be kinda cool, wouldn't it?). In many ways, I could see the law getting just a tad more strict as a good thing...but don't overdo it.

For reference, I live in Kansas. If I had the money and wanted to go buy a pistol, all I have to do is take a trip to Bass Pro Shop (or wherever) and plunk down the cash. I have to fill out one page of questions (are you a felon? etc) but that's all. The guy disappears into the back for a minute and calls the FBI, who tells him I'm OK. I walk out the door that day with my shiny new pistol...no waiting period, no nothing, because that's how they do it in this state (you know, the same state that doesn't allow schools to teach evolution... ).

I like the idea of a waiting period for guns, and it seems like most states have that. I think that would cut down on some crime...the spur of the moment stuff where a guy gets fired from his job, buys a gun and comes back shooting. While it might be an inconvenience to your average consumer, I would hope they would understand. I wouldn't like waiting, but if that policy saves even one life, isn't it worth it?

So which will come first...

The shield or the lasgun? I vote lasgun, since we already have a good technology base to work with on those.