• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun control

bigred said:
I see - so since it's not a perfect solution, why bother eh?
Click to expand...
No, not what I said. What I said is that since criminals will have the guns anyway, I'd like to be able to get them, too.

Edit: I should also add that even if the criminals don't have guns, I would still like to have one to defend myself with. Self defense is not about making a fair fight. It is about going home, intead of going to the hospital or the morgue.
 
Last edited:
Freakshow said:
Where are you statistics on this? And are you considering the deterrent effect on criminals when evaluating them?
Click to expand...
Sorry, not getting drawn into the "stats debate," as one can play stats games all day long, again to either side's benefit.

Anyway, IMO benefit the deterrant effect is much less than the harmful aspect - for starters, most criminals don't KNOW you have a gun, so there is no deterrant factor. Second, you ignore how owning a gun can actually an enticement for a criminal to rob you, ie to get hold of a gun (not traceable to them no less). And while there is never a shortage of stupid criminals, I'm betting that the vast majority trying to rob you (of your gun or other stuff) are likely to case the joint and do it at a time when they know or are reasonably sure you aren't home, for just exactly that deterrant reason.

Basically, if you live in someplace Iraq, I'll buy the deterrant/good protection device thing. Here in the U.S., it is IMO a very weak argument.
 
Sorry if I came off a bit harsh on my last post. I actually didn't see where you complemented my post... :blush: I just went immediately into defence mode. Anyway...

bigred said:
More often than not, of course. The power/ease of use, esp. over distance/etc of a gun is not exactly a small factor in its popularity for crimes.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is the weapon of choice for would be violent criminals. However, the majority of crimes committed with a gun are either by repeat offenders who would be unable to obtain a permit or through domestic violence. Of course, someone would have to break the law to become a repeat offender, I just can't really think of another way, other than banning firearms to keep that from happening.

bigred said:
Unfortunately, no. Course hundreds of years ago they didn't think elimination of slavery was a realistic option either, so I can hope....
Click to expand...

I'm hoping with you. I just believe that we need to do something now to stem the tide.

bigred said:
Of course not. Didn't mean to imply that, pardon if the choice of words was lacking. I would say it's a good rule of thumb though.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I took that the wrong way, there certainly are some people who share those beliefs and act the way you mentioned. However, I don't believe that the majority follow that logic.

bigred said:
:rolleyes: oh cmon......even if we agree that it is in fact a constitutional right, I think EXTREMELY few people hang onto any such right as a "matter of principle." They're thinking of the real-world benefit to themselves.
Click to expand...

The reason I mentioned that to begin with is that I know several people who hold that belief, many of them despise handguns. Of course, I could never be certain that this is actually their intention.
 
bigred said:
Sorry, not getting drawn into the "stats debate," as one can play stats games all day long, again to either side's benefit.
Click to expand...
In other words, you just toss out stats and facts, and grab whatever opinion suits you.

Anyway, IMO benefit the deterrant effect is much less than the harmful aspect
Click to expand...
Your opinion is not relevant. This is not a matter of opinion. It either is, or it isn't.
 
Freakshow said:
There are significant differences in the cultures in terms of guns, violence, gang activity, etc. Does Denmark have as many gangbangers as the US does? I'm not putting it all on gangs. Just using it as an example.
Click to expand...
Sure there are differences, and as for gangbangers I have no idea, but the point is that you cannot draw a direct anology from drugs to guns.
 
Kerberos said:
Sure there are differences, and as for gangbangers I have no idea, but the point is that you cannot draw a direct anology from drugs to guns.
Click to expand...
The reason I do is that there is a black market for each. Did you know that there is already a black market for illegal guns here in the US?
 
Freakshow said:
No, not what I said. What I said is that since criminals will have the guns anyway, I'd like to be able to get them, too
Click to expand...
My bad, thx.


Edit: I should also add that even if the criminals don't have guns, I would still like to have one to defend myself with. Self defense is not about making a fair fight. It is about going home, intead of going to the hospital or the morgue.
Click to expand...
But as stated earlier, the odds of you both needing and being able to successfully defend yourself with a gun is very minimal (unless you live in one seriously extremely violent area, which describes a very small percentage of the U.S., at least). You make a great many assumptions that don't necessarily hold up and I'm sure way more often than not wouldn't, eg that you WON'T be caught off-guard, will have enough time to pull out your gun, use it effectively, etc etc etc. Again there are stupid criminals and cases where I'm sure this is true, but I'd bet my left arm that they are by FAR in the minority. And I'm left-handed. Add to that how those rare cases are offset by the much greater likelihood of a crime of passion, accidents, someone getting and using your gun against you......on and on and on.......

IMO very strict control if not an outright ban on handguns is an easy choice.
 
bigred said:
My bad, thx.


But as stated earlier, the odds of you both needing and being able to successfully defend yourself with a gun is very minimal (unless you live in one seriously extremely violent area, which describes a very small percentage of the U.S., at least).
Click to expand...
The odds of being in a car crash are very minimal, for each individual trip you make. Do you still buckle your seat belt? I haven't been in a wreck in nearly 20 years. But I still buckle up.

I live in a nice area, with a low violent crime rate. But several months ago, a woman was murdered and raped (in that order) just a couple hundred yards from my door. I walk by there all the time. There is always a potential for violent crime.

You are trying to make my self defense choices for me. No thanks.
 
Freakshow said:
In other words, you just toss out stats and facts, and grab whatever opinion suits you.

Your opinion is not relevant. This is not a matter of opinion. It either is, or it isn't.
Click to expand...

We will await your irrefutable evidence, then.
 
Freakshow said:
In other words, you just toss out stats and facts, and grab whatever opinion suits you.
Click to expand...
uh, no. I already explained why I'm not taking the bait. It really doesn't matter to me if you get it or not.

Your opinion is not relevant. This is not a matter of opinion. It either is, or it isn't.
Click to expand...
And here I thought this message board was a place where people stated theirs opinions, silly me. :cool: I didn't realize I had to have a thesis paper complete with bibliography and all.

My opinion is just as relevant as yours, sorry. And not having a wave of stats behind me doesn't make it any more or less "correct" (if there can be such a thing in such a controversial topic). I also seriously question if there is an absolute right or wrong here.

Anyway, ultimately it really doesn't matter to me who does or doesn't agree w/me. I was just into some general discussion.
 
Last edited:
Pink guns.

Yes, I'm watching Bullsh*t. Right now. OnDemand cable is so farking cool.
 
Mephisto said:
Just before Christmas in Albuquerque (New Mexico) a woman was accosted by men armed with knives attempting to rob her (or rape her) in a parking lot. Luckily for her a person with a concealed-carry permit was nearby and killed her attacker while holding the rest for police.
Click to expand...

What I don't get are the people who make the argument that it would have been better to simply let the woman get robbed/raped than to have killed the attacker. That's great if they want to make that decision for themselves, but it's not cool at all to make that choice for someone else.
 
Miggins said:
What worries me is the way that in the US dad`s like to bond with their sons by taking them into the woods to pop the heads off a few inoffensive furry animals. Where I live, we`re more likely to buy them a pet rabbit to teach them resbonsibility and caring skills, instead of teaching them how to blow a bunnys` brains out at 20 paces.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I grew up in the country, and I can honestly say I know fewer people who went hunting with their dad than I know of people who bought inappropriate pets for their kids, that later died of neglect.

I think eating an animal for food is less cruel.
 
CFLarsen said:
Have you ever been any other race than your own?

Have you ever been addicted to heroin?

Have you ever been on death row?

Have you ever committed suicide?

Have you ever talked to dead people?

No to all of these?

Then you can't speak out on racial issues, drug issues, penal issues, psychological issues, or paranormal issues.

Right?
Click to expand...


He didn't object to any opinion on the subject, just the specific opinion expressed. There is a huge difference.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Odds always favor an agressor. For one thing, you don't have eyes in the back of your head.
Click to expand...

If true, it doesn't take into account those who would choose not to be agressors because they know the other person is also armed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom