Gun Control is ridiculous

[Quad4_72]

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that no-one's out to get you, that's true. Nevertheless, if someone broke into my house and cornered me, I'd let him steal my stuff. I don't value stuff as much as human life.

Unlike you, it seems.

Apparently you missed the part about the scenario where the robbers killed your wife and kids in front of you. THIS IS A POSSIBILITY. There are some VERY bad people out there. There are literally thousands of cases of home invaders killing unarmed innocent people. I don't see why my right should be taken away to defend against these bad people.

 

[Tailgater]

You really value the life of a thief less than your laptop?

That's pretty much the most ignorant thing I've heard on this board. Let's hope you never end up homeless, or with a drug problem...

Hey, I know. Let's cut out the middle man, huh? Execute drug-addicts. Federally mandated death for anyone with a substance abuse problem!

Are you safer, and is your country safer, with guns or without? The statistics say without.

Yes, I don't own a gun and I value my stuff more than the thief. It's my stuff. If the thief doesn't value his own life, why should I?

I won't end up with a drug problem because I value my life.

Is our country safer with or without drug addicts? The statistics say without.

 

[volatile]

Despite how that reads, I'm not ridiculing your position (it's just easier to write it that way). I'm simply curious as to how far you will take your nonviolence.

*giggle*

Look. I'll shout at a burglar. Hell, I'll try whack him with the nearest heavy object, probably, were I to be able to sneak up on him - though that's very, very unlikely. More probably, I'll scream and scream and scream and wail till the police are on their way. If he drew a knife on me, or a gun, I'd damn well let him steal whatever he wanted and claim the insurance money.

When cornered, burglar's generally don't stick around. Again, getting caught puts an awfully quick end to that burglary career.

Can killing someone for the sake of a few hundred quid be justified? If so, why not have the death penalty for all property crimes?

 

[Azure]

Do they really?

Actually, change my post.

Every member of the military/militia, is required to have their assault rifles within their home.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels between the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, to Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime

 

[Azure]

So apparently the Swiss have a lot of people in service, therefore a good majority of the Swiss have at one point had guns in their homes. They have also been educated properly about guns through the military. Their crime rate is very low. Criminals know damn well that it is likely a home is going to be well armed. I LIKE THE SWISS.

14% of the population has assault rifles in their homes.

Assault rifles....not handguns.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How on Earth is that different??

If all threats are defined as:
THREAT={criminal, asteroid, blizzard, mad dog,...}

Any threat is any one, or more, elements from THREAT:
ANY_THREAT

THREAT or, put another way, THREAT[latex]$$\supseteq$$[/latex]ANY_THREAT

Which is different from
ALL_THREAT=THREAT

You can't ignore production.

I was addressing supply. Do you want to start a new tangent on production?

 

[Quad4_72]

14% of the population has assault rifles in their homes.

Assault rifles....not handguns.

Got ya. I thought something was a bit fishy there. haha.

 

[Quad4_72]

*giggle*

Look. I'll shout at a burglar. Hell, I'll try whack him with the nearest heavy object, probably, were I to be able to sneak up on him - though that's very, very unlikely. More probably, I'll scream and scream and scream and wail till the police are on their way. If he drew a knife on me, or a gun, I'd damn well let him steal whatever he wanted and claim the insurance money.

When cornered, burglar's generally don't stick around. Again, getting caught puts an awfully quick end to that burglary career.

Can killing someone for the sake of a few hundred quid be justified? If so, why not have the death penalty for all property crimes?

I am guessing a lot of this depends upon which country you live in and what type of neighborhood. IT still does not change the fact that you cannot predict who comes into your home and it is unsafe to assume that the intruder does not mean any harm. If someone breaks into my home, I am not going to risk my life over some scumbags.

 

[volatile]

Yes, I don't own a gun and I value my stuff more than the thief. It's my stuff. If the thief doesn't value his own life, why should I?

Really? You think drug addicts don't "value their own life"? You really don't know very much about drug addiction do you? Or poverty in general for that matter. You'd have the death penalty for property crimes then, I take it? Even white collar fraud? Or is your bloodthirsty contempt for criminals just limited to junkies?

What's the price where shooting someone dead ceases to be acceptable? You'd kill someone for stealing a dollar? Hundred dollars? When does it stop being OK to kill someone for being greedier or hungrier or more desperate than you are?

I won't end up with a drug problem because I value my life.

Oh really. How about homeless? Why are you so contemptuous of those less fortunate than yourself?

Is our country safer with or without drug addicts? The statistics say without.

Well, the war on drugs is a whole other thread. Drug addicts generally? Probably there's no huge difference. With illegal drugs? Definitely less safe.

You'd kill all drug addicts then? Alcoholics? Smokers?

You're insane.

 

[Garrette]

Look. I'll shout at a burglar. Hell, I'll try whack him with the nearest heavy object, probably, were I to be able to sneak up on him - though that's very, very unlikely. More probably, I'll scream and scream and scream and wail till the police are on their way.

Fair enough.

If he drew a knife on me, or a gun,

You would have brought in on yourself by trying to whack him with a heavy object. He's a peaceful burglar who merely wants your stuff.

If you use as one of your arguments against gun ownership the fact (?) that their use is more likely to result in injury/death than their non-use, you must use that argument also against whacking with heavy objects.

I'd damn well let him steal whatever he wanted and claim the insurance money.

In that circumstance, I probably would, too.

When cornered, burglar's generally don't stick around.

Then why would you whack him?

Can killing someone for the sake of a few hundred quid be justified?

You honestly can think of no circumstances? Granted, they are extreme, but they exist.

If so, why not have the death penalty for all property crimes?

Personally, my stance on lethal force, whether applied via firearm or otherwise, is that it is justified in self defense and discovery of a burglar mid-burgle is not in itself sufficient reason. But that is separate from saying I should not have the firearm at all or that I should not be allowed to wield it in my own home.

 

[Tailgater]

*giggle*

Look. I'll shout at a burglar. Hell, I'll try whack him with the nearest heavy object, probably, were I to be able to sneak up on him - though that's very, very unlikely. More probably, I'll scream and scream and scream and wail till the police are on their way. If he drew a knife on me, or a gun, I'd damn well let him steal whatever he wanted and claim the insurance money.

When cornered, burglar's generally don't stick around. Again, getting caught puts an awfully quick end to that burglary career.

Can killing someone for the sake of a few hundred quid be justified? If so, why not have the death penalty for all property crimes?

If you are taking a passive approach to a burglar and value your life I would not swing heavy objects or scream. Find a way out of the house or hide till it's clear and then call the police. This is not a sarcastic post. A burglar with something to kill you with is more likely to want you to shut up.

 

[Azure]

Got ya. I thought something was a bit fishy there. haha.

Perhaps someone should find statistics, saying that those homes are broken into, because of the weaponry inside, more then homes without the assault rifles.

Oh wait...

 

[Ranb]

You would kill a man to stop him nicking your telly? .....That's pretty much the most ignorant thing I've heard on this board. Let's hope you never end up homeless, or with a drug problem... Execute drug-addicts. Federally mandated death for anyone with a substance abuse problem!

Are you safer, and is your country safer, with guns or without? The statistics say without.

You have got to be the stupidest person posting in this thread. That or your prejudices are coloring your views on life.

I said I would stop a thief, not kill a thief. I said I would use a gun to stop a killer.

I will not be a crack addict because I am not a f--king moron. It is that simple. I also did not say execute addicts; I said I would defend myself against a killer.

Personally I think in some situations I am safer while armed.

In the above post you have shown yourself to be a liar and a fool. You should not post on the Internet until you are able to control yourself and behave more civilized.

Ranb

 

[Molinaro]

If I have a gun, yes it makes me safer. What do you propose? Taking away everyones guns in the US? That is something that is never going to happen. Lets be real about that. Criminals are always going to be able to get ahold of guns no matter how illegal guns ever became. Fact remains right now that a criminal can easily get a gun off the streets.

Why would a criminal go about getting a gun legally that can be traced back to their name? The problem is guns in the hands of bad people. I should not be punished for a criminal's act.

I keep seeing comments like this and I don't understand it at all. Currently there are about 50 million + guns manufactured in the US each year. There are many, many law abiding gun owners.

Now, if all the legaly owned guns were taken and destroyed. And 50 million + were no longer made each year. And, as each criminal is arrested, their gun is destroyed.

Would you still say that "a criminal can easily get a gun off the streets."?


I just find that attitude to be completely lacking any sense of reality, since it completely ignores everything that leads to criminals being able to easily get guns off the street.

Arguments that I've seen indicating that they still will be easy to get are as follows:

1) they will be smuggled into the country

2) people can make their own

3) they will be sold on black market by crooked cops/military


Now each of those replies that I've seen before seem completely out of touch with reality, to me. Simply because even given those circumstances the number of guns available would be dramaticaly lower than it is now. And the cost would skyrocket.

 

[Azure]

Wow....just wow.

Lets take away all the guns from law-abiding citizens...that will solve ALL OUR FRICKIN' PROBLEMS.

You're insane.

 

[Garrette]

Really? You think drug addicts don't "value their own life"? You really don't know very much about drug addiction do you?

Do you?

Are you unaware of how an addict can be simply incapable of thinking about anything except the next hit or the money for the next hit or the obstacle between him and the money for the next hit?

Or poverty in general for that matter.

I think you're overstating Quad's position, but I also think you're looking at this in a pristine manner, i.e., desperate but harmless burglar invades home of person who can afford to lose a few things.

Tell me, volatile, where do you draw the line for the burglar? If it appears I am well off because I have a home and my children are clothed, but I'm really mortgaged well beyond my ability with medical bills piling up and I'm working three jobs already and my kids have enough to eat but never any to spare and the money is getting tighter and tighter and the only way out is my fledgling career as a writer and the only copy of my unpublished novel is on the laptop that the junkie is trying to take away, are you telling me I should be happy with my insurance?

What if I can't even afford insurance?

Should I simply burgle my neighbor because we know he won't try to stop me?

 

[CFLarsen]

So apparently the Swiss have a lot of people in service, therefore a good majority of the Swiss have at one point had guns in their homes. They have also been educated properly about guns through the military. Their crime rate is very low. Criminals know damn well that it is likely a home is going to be well armed. I LIKE THE SWISS.

Educate yourself.

So being an enlisted man means you will never become unlawful?

Of course not. What gave you that idea?

It's one of them. Another is what I asked you previously:

Is there anything that would make you trust them (me/Quad/the generic gun owner)?

Unless you can guarantee that you or anyone else will not go nuts, no.

You have to prove to me that you are not dangerous with a gun.

14% of the population has assault rifles in their homes.

Assault rifles....not handguns.

Enlisted men.

It's equivalent to the US National Guard.

If all threats are defined as:
THREAT={criminal, asteroid, blizzard, mad dog,...}

Any threat is any one, or more, elements from THREAT:
ANY_THREAT[qimg]http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$$\subseteq$$[/qimg]THREAT or, put another way, THREAT[latex]$$\supseteq$$[/latex]ANY_THREAT

Which is different from
ALL_THREAT=THREAT

No, no. "Any threat" means "any threat imaginable", as you correctly note. But if "any threat" doesn't mean "all threats", then it should be "some threats".

I was addressing supply. Do you want to start a new tangent on production?

How can you separate production from supply??

 

[CFLarsen]

Wow....just wow.

Lets take away all the guns from law-abiding citizens...that will solve ALL OUR FRICKIN' PROBLEMS.

You're insane.

Why do you feel you have to resort to hyperbole?

Are you really under that much pressure?

 

[baron]

Burglars are, by and large, into the material rewards of burgling. They aren't psychopathic serial killers knocking you off in your sleep for fun. Furthermore, they often have drug habits to support. They need cash, not bodies. Killing homeowners tends to have the police come after you quite quickly, and puts and end to one's burgling career. Life is not a movie.

I agree with your premise, and most of your points, but in this instance I think you're missing something. Confronted with someone in my house, and not knowing what he's there for or what his intentions are, I would expect the worst. It's not worth the risk. What sets me apart from the gun fanatics is that I wouldn't find it desirable or necessary to blow the guy's head off.

It's worth noting that if many of these people spent their thousands of dollars on home security instead of filling their houses with guns, they'd be a good deal safer (that's if they don't choke on their good ol' macho pride first).

 

[volatile]

You have got to be the stupidest person posting in this thread. That or your prejudices are coloring your views on life.

Touché. Could it be your definition of "stupid" is just "disagrees vehemently with me"?

I said I would stop a thief, not kill a thief. I said I would use a gun to stop a killer.

How do you know he's a killer unless he's killed you? You make the assumption of violent intent first - indeed, you have to for your gung-ho plan to work at all.

I will not be a crack addict because I am not a f--king moron. It is that simple. I also did not say execute addicts; I said I would defend myself against a killer.

So, if someone was burgling your house, you wouldn't shoot them? Then what ever are we arguing about?

Personally I think in some situations I am safer while armed.

But not in a non-violent burglary, clearly, seeing as you wouldn't use your gun against a burglar. So what do you need a gun for? You realise how few psycho serial killers than kill for the fun of it there are, right?