Gun Control is ridiculous

[CFLarsen]

Your source answers the question, "How many firearm deaths were the result of arguements?" It does not answer the question, "how people who are law-abiding citizens who have gotten into arguments have resulted to homocide to solve their differences?".

It tells us why people are shot.

Do you have better data?

 

[Quad4_72]

Your source answers the question, "How many firearm deaths were the result of arguements?" It does not answer the question, "how people who are law-abiding citizens who have gotten into arguments have resulted to homocide to solve their differences?".

Very good point. That is what I want to know. Then on top of that, what percentage of people who own handguns have ever commited a crime with them?

 

[Garrette]

Why should I find that convincing?

Is there anything you would find convincing? That would cause you to trust someone with a weapon?

Been there, done that to death. Cars are not designed to kill. Guns are.

I know that argument. Sometimes it applies; sometimes it does not. When your point is simply that an item causes death regardless of the goodness of its owner, then dismissing the automobile argument is inconsistent.

 

[volatile]

So if I come in contact with a criminal who has broken into my home and is trying to kill me with a knife/any other weapon, am I supposed to keep in mind that I am not ever justified in killing someone? Try telling that to the guy attacking you, see if it works.

Why would he kill you? Just let him steal your stuff, raise the alarm, and get the insurance money. Burglars don't make a habit of murdering house-holders. It rather increases the police attention spent looking for them, and puts a rapid end to their burgling careers.

What monetary value do you put on a human life? You'd really rather shoot some poor crack-head dead than lose your plasma screen TV?

An outright ban huh? You realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep criminals from getting their hands on guns in the US correct? Taking away legal possession of a firearm just says, "Alright criminals, feel free to have complete control over every single citizen out there. Nobody is going to be able to stop you."

It's impossible here too. We don't have gangs of armed thugs running rampage through the streets, though. What kind of paranoid world do you inhabit? You really think that if you didn't have a gun handy your society would implode?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Any sort of threat.

Yes. "any sort of threat," not "all threats".

Producing a lot of crystal meth is far easier than producing a lot of guns.

My analogy was addressing supply, not production.

 

[Azure]

There have been numerous gun threads, and we have agreed to disagree, I think. It comes down to what you believe culturally is right. Australia has gun laws and a lower homicide rate than the states.

And the Swiss require their citizens to keep assault rifles in their homes, and have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It tells us why people are shot.

Yes, it provides categorization of the causes of the firearms homicides. It does nothing to answer Quad's question.

Do you have better data?

Please do not try to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Quad4_72]

Why would he kill you? Just let him steal your stuff, raise the alarm, and get the insurance money. Burglars don't make a habit of murdering house-holders. It rather increases the police attention spent looking for them, and puts a rapid end to their burgling careers.

That is wrong in so many ways. Are you implying that I should assume every robber is non-violent? If someone threatens me with a knife, why should I assume that it is a bluff? Im sorry but I think most people will agree here that is not a very well thought out post. Tell that to the thousands of people who have not had guns, who were complient with the criminal, and then killed. See what kind of response you get. Oh wait, you can't get a response from these innocent people, they are dead.

What monetary value do you put on a human life? You'd really rather shoot some poor crack-head dead than lose your plasma screen TV?

Jesus you really don't get it. Some poor crackhead? Are you COMPLETELY out of your mind!? What part of "Violent criminal breaking into a home" do you not understand?

It's impossible here too. We don't have gangs of armed thugs running rampage through the streets, though. What kind of paranoid world do you inhabit? You really think that if you didn't have a gun handy your society would implode?

All I am saying is to be prepared just in case. I can guarantee you, if someone broke into your house, tied you and your families hands up, and then shot your wife and kids, you would have wished you could have defended them.

 

[Quad4_72]

And the Swiss require their citizens to keep assault rifles in their homes, and have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

Do they really?

 

[Garrette]

Why would he kill you? Just let him steal your stuff, raise the alarm, and get the insurance money. Burglars don't make a habit of murdering house-holders. It rather increases the police attention spent looking for them, and puts a rapid end to their burgling careers.

We could anecdote this to death and mistakenly apply our own rational psychology to that of burglars whose psychology we do not share, but instead I'd like to explore this further.

Let's hypothesize:

You awake one night to find your house being burgled.

You: Pardon me, but you're in my home.

Burglar: Yes, yes, won't be a moment.

You: I'll thank you to stop.

Burglar: Not quite yet. Still have an empty sack or two.

You: But I've caught you in the act, Sir.

Burglar: Right-o. You're a spot-on Johnny. I'll have to brush up my skills next time. Sorry to wake you. As long as you're awake, though, mind if I pop up to the bedroom to see what I've missed?

You: Yes, I bloody well mind!

Burglar: Oh, well. That is a shame now. Still, as I'm here and all, and as I'm the one outside the law, I'll thank you to move out the way, please.

You: Oh, I think not.

Burglar: Are you threatening me with violence, Sir?

You: No. I merely said I won't move aside.

Burglar: It amounts to the same thing now, dunnit? I am intent on moving upstair, Sir, and you are in my way.

You: Oh, bother. I'll move, but I'm going to pick up the phone and call the police.

Burglar: Sorry 'bout that. First thing I did was pull the cord. Got that bit right at least.

You: Well at least leave that silver locket for me. It was mum's.

Burglar: Oh, she did have good taste, dintshe? Sorry 'bout that, too.

You: Dammit.

Burglar: Think you could brew us a cuppa while you're waiting?



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.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. "any sort of threat," not "all threats".

How on Earth is that different??

My analogy was addressing supply, not production.

You can't ignore production.

And the Swiss require their citizens to keep assault rifles in their homes, and have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

No, no, no, NO!

This is why I previously urged people to check out the previous gun threads. The Swiss are not required to keep assault rifles in their homes.

Conscription age starts at 18 and each man serves 260 days in all (down from 300). Usually, they start by serving about 90 days, and then 3-4 weeks each year until the required 260 days are reached - or they become 34.

While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes, along with 50 rounds of ammo. This ammo is solely meant for self defence until they reach the mobilisation points (in case they are called), and is stored in a sealed tin.

We are talking about enlisted men.

Yes, it provides categorization of the causes of the firearms homicides. It does nothing to answer Quad's question.

Please do not try to shift the burden of proof.

I am not. I asked if you had better data. Do you?

 

[Ranb]

Why would he kill you? Just let him steal your stuff, raise the alarm, and get the insurance money. .....What monetary value do you put on a human life? You'd really rather shoot some poor crack-head dead than lose your plasma screen TV?..... You really think that if you didn't have a gun handy your society would implode?

Let him steal my stuff? I would rather stop him. Stopping a thief is after all the moral and legal thing to do (at least in the USA). I do not need a gun to stop a thief, but I might need one if the thief decides to become a killer after I object to his activities.

My life is worth more than any thief who might object to me interferring with his/her choies of occupation. In other words, it is priceless. There are no poor crackheads. There are only dumbs--t crackheads who decided to wreck their lives and drag anyone else down that they can in the process of supporting their habits by any means they see fit.

I do not think my society will implode if I am not able to have a gun. But there are people who think society will implode if I am allowed to own a handgun, machinegun, silencer, scoped rifle, pengun, shotgun, or any other weapon they have some kind of phobia for.

Ranb

 

[volatile]

That is wrong in so many ways. Are you implying that I should assume every robber is non-violent? If someone threatens me with a knife, why should I assume that it is a bluff? Im sorry but I think most people will agree here that is not a very well thought out post. Tell that to the thousands of people who have not had guns, who were complient with the criminal, and then killed. See what kind of response you get. Oh wait, you can't get a response from these innocent people, they are dead.

Really? Homicide rates are what in the UK now?

I already speculated that the reason the US murder rate is high and the burglary rate low compared to the UK is that, in the States, burglary is more likely to end murder. In short, go waving a gun at a burglar, he'll shoot you. Do you doubt that?

Jesus you really don't get it. Some poor crackhead? Are you COMPLETELY out of your mind!? What part of "Violent criminal breaking into a home" do you not understand?

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.

If someone's in your home at night, he wants your stuff. Give him it, and he won't kill you. Why are you living in this paranoid fantasy where every man and his dog is an adversary out to murder you in cold blood.

All I am saying is to be prepared just in case. I can guarantee you, if someone broke into your house, tied you and your families hands up, and then shot your wife and kids, you would have wished you could have defended them.

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.

 

[Garrette]

No, no, no, NO!

This is why I previously urged people to check out the previous gun threads. The Swiss are not required to keep assault rifles in their homes.

Conscription age starts at 18 and each man serves 260 days in all (down from 300). Usually, they start by serving about 90 days, and then 3-4 weeks each year until the required 260 days are reached - or they become 34.

While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes, along with 50 rounds of ammo. This ammo is solely meant for self defence until they reach the mobilisation points (in case they are called), and is stored in a sealed tin.

I was going to make the same correction, but you beat me to it (granted I don't have the details memorized to this degree).

We are talking about enlisted men.

Why should I trust them?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why should I trust them?

That's the question, isn't it?

 

[Quad4_72]

No, no, no, NO!

This is why I previously urged people to check out the previous gun threads. The Swiss are not required to keep assault rifles in their homes.

Conscription age starts at 18 and each man serves 260 days in all (down from 300). Usually, they start by serving about 90 days, and then 3-4 weeks each year until the required 260 days are reached - or they become 34.

While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes, along with 50 rounds of ammo. This ammo is solely meant for self defence until they reach the mobilisation points (in case they are called), and is stored in a sealed tin.

We are talking about enlisted men.

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.

 

[volatile]

Let him steal my stuff? I would rather stop him. Stopping a thief is after all the moral and legal thing to do (at least in the USA). I do not need a gun to stop a thief, but I might need one if the thief decides to become a killer after I object to his activities.

You would kill a man to stop him nicking your telly? When did this start being about greed and stop being about "protection"? You really value the life of a thief less than your laptop?

My life is worth more than any thief who might object to me interferring with his/her choies of occupation. In other words, it is priceless. There are no poor crackheads. There are only dumbs--t crackheads who decided to wreck their lives and drag anyone else down that they can in the process of supporting their habits by any means they see fit.

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!

I do not think my society will implode if I am not able to have a gun. But there are people who think society will implode if I am allowed to own a handgun, machinegun, silencer, scoped rifle, pengun, shotgun, or any other weapon they have some kind of phobia for.

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

 

[Garrette]

In short, go waving a gun at a burglar, he'll shoot you. Do you doubt that?

I do.

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.

They are most often (the drug habit ones, anyway) not rational. Your argument assumes they will act rationally when they have already demonstrated that they do not do so.

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.

Nor are burglars characters who act according to script.

If someone's in your home at night, he wants your stuff. Give him it, and he won't kill you.

Possibly true.

Why are you living in this paranoid fantasy where every man and his dog is an adversary out to murder you in cold blood.

I'm important?

 

[Tailgater]

We are talking about enlisted men.

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

 

[Garrette]

That's the question, isn't it?

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)?