Serious Change My Mind Number 1

25-03-2018, 11:51 AM

Teratronic Wrote: But if there were no guns, anybody could break into a house knowing full well that they could harm that person. Not knowing if that person in the house has a gun or not stops a lot of criminals from breaking in. You can't deny someone the right to protect themself or their family from someone who intends to harm them.

You're right. Knowing that someone may have a gun in the house can stop a criminal from breaking in but there are still gonna be criminals who will attempt to.
But couldn't you also say the same about melee weapons? Even if you're a brute with lots of strength, if you get stabbed multiple times with a knife or bludgeoned by a bat, you'll get fucked up.
If guns weren't accessible, we would still have other choices of means to protect ourselveswith.
Either with guns or without guns, you will always be able to protect yourself or cause damage to others. It's just the fact that guns cause a lot ofdamage in a quick manner with longer range than other weapons.

Quote:You can't deny someone the right to protect themself or their family from someone who intends to harm them.

I think you forgot to add "with a gun". I never said I would deny someone the right to protect themselves at all.

2. Respect is the key to an open field of communication. Insulting someone will close that field.
Can't
Aoki will have to ban all retarded kids that cant win arguments

25-03-2018, 12:06 PM

Altoids Wrote: You're right. Knowing that someone may have a gun in the house can stop a criminal from breaking in but there are still gonna be criminals who will attempt to.
But couldn't you also say the same about melee weapons? Even if you're a brute with lots of strength, if you get stabbed multiple times with a knife or bludgeoned by a bat, you'll get fucked up.
If guns weren't accessible, we would still have other choices of means to protect ourselveswith.
Either with guns or without guns, you will always be able to protect yourself or cause damage to others. It's just the fact that guns cause a lot ofdamage in a quick manner with longer range than other weapons.



I think you forgot to add "with a gun". I never said I would deny someone the right to protect themselves at all.

The problem with using the melee weapons instead of guns is that if the person attacking is much stronger, the victim would most likely be overpowered and wounded or killed. Guns make the fight against the criminal unfair in the victims favor.

---

25-03-2018, 12:16 PM

Hazed Wrote: 2. Respect is the key to an open field of communication. Insulting someone will close that field.
Can't
Aoki will have to ban all retarded kids that cant win arguments

Lol, I am not saying Aoki has to ban them, I will just simply not reply to someone who is being disrespectful.

25-03-2018, 12:22 PM

Teratronic Wrote: The problem with using the melee weapons instead of guns is that if the person attacking is much stronger, the victim would most likely be overpowered and wounded or killed. Guns make the fight against the criminal unfair in the victims favor.

---

Lol, I am not saying Aoki has to ban them, I will just simply not reply to someone who is being disrespectful.

Hm, I see.
I wasn't really trying to change your mind. I just wanted to know more about your standpoint.

Would you agree though that maybe we should introduce some kind of psychological screening before licensing a gun to a civilian? It could help with making sure that we don't license those who are mentally unstable.
Of course, it would take longer to receive your gun and would cost more money but would still probably help nonetheless.
Like I said, I'm not sure if some states or countries already have this implemented but from what I skimmed over, it doesn't seem to be the case.

25-03-2018, 12:37 PM

Altoids Wrote: Hm, I see.
I wasn't really trying to change your mind. I just wanted to know more about your standpoint.

Would you agree though that maybe we should introduce some kind of psychological screening before licensing a gun to a civilian? It could help with making sure that we don't license those who are mentally unstable.
Of course, it would take longer to receive your gun and would cost more money but would still probably help nonetheless.

I would agree to something like that, yes, but it troubles me that there are people who want to ban guns completely but don't think about how it would affect the United States, including the potential for a tyrannical government, which is what the Second Amendment was made to protect from.

25-03-2018, 12:40 PM

Teratronic Wrote: I would agree to something like that, yes, but it troubles me that there are people who want to ban guns completely but don't think about how it would affect the United States, including the potential for a tyrannical government, which is what the Second Amendment was made to protect from.

To be honest, I like the second amendment.
I think some people are just afraid because of all the shootings that have been happening lately, especially school shootings. When people are afraid, they sometimes don't think rationally.
You can't deny however that when used in the wrong hands that guns are weapons of great destruction. After these events, people are scared of what could happen in the future.
I just think that we need to reinforce the requirements and procedures for obtaining guns.

25-03-2018, 12:46 PM

Altoids Wrote: To be honest, I like the second amendment.
I think some people are just afraid because of all the shootings that have been happening lately, especially school shootings. When people are afraid, they sometimes don't think rationally.
I just think that we need to reinforce the requirements and procedures for obtaining guns.

I agree shootings are terrible, but look at the most recent shooting. There were far less casualties because the shooter was shot by someone with a gun. Also, after thinking about the psychological test idea, before I would even think about implementing it I would need to know who determines whether or not the person is mentally capable to own a firearm, because if that falls into the federal government's responsibilities, then I would definitely vote against it, because again that allows for the potential to have a tyrannical government to form. If the government decides what the requirements to pass the test are, they would be able to change it and possibly make it impossible to pass, thereby making it impossible to own a firearm.

25-03-2018, 12:51 PM

Teratronic Wrote: I agree shootings are terrible, but look at the most recent shooting. There were far less casualties because the shooter was shot by someone with a gun.

Is it the Maryland one? That's the one I'm seeing when I look it up.
The school I went to actually had two officers on the grounds all school day long. I think it's a very good way to combat situations like this.
As for teachers being equipped with guns, eh. Still not 100% sure. Unless they went through an EXTENSIVE screening, I wouldn't trust my teachers with guns. Some teachers are just as unstable as anyone else.

25-03-2018, 12:57 PM

Altoids Wrote: Is it the Maryland one? That's the one I'm seeing when I look it up.
The school I went to actually had two officers on the grounds all school day long. I think it's a very good way to combat situations like this.
As for teachers being equipped with guns, eh. Still not 100% sure. Unless they went through an EXTENSIVE screening, I wouldn't trust my teachers with guns. Some teachers are just as unstable as anyone else.

Yes it is the Maryland shooting. I doubt that even if they give all teachers guns, the teachers will ever have to use them. Anyone who thought of shooting up a school would think twice knowing that every single teacher has a gun.Also, I updated my previous reply to you, just in case you didn't notice.

How that go to some forum rules to shootings and guns :rangery: