On November 26 2008 15:13 Chef wrote: I would feel safer in Detroit without guns, than in Detroit with guns.
Shooting someone that is mugging you isn't self-defence. Self-defence is shooting someone who is trying to kill you. If they just want your money, you're not actually allowed to kill them, you're only allowed to run.
well i dont know what the law is in canada, but you can definitely shoot someone that is mugging you here in the U.S. lol
for example, here is the new york state law
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is: (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery; or (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
On November 26 2008 13:42 Chef wrote: I'll say right now, in Canada, I don't know anyone who owns a gun. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 1 in 10,000 people carry a gun with them at all times (and maybe a bunch of people just have a gun from WWII hung up on their wall). I feel very safe.
If you live in Detroit, where I imagine a lot more people carry guns around with them all the time... Would you feel safer than I do? I wouldn't.
Canada isnt America though, you dont have a part of your basic government that says you have the right to bear arms. Now I dont think that the amendment is good in particular, but it was written there and until it is changed people have the right to have a gun. Also, Canada is full of sissies what are you afraid of?
On November 26 2008 13:22 Chef wrote: So what happens when I'm having a bad day, and I'm not thinking reasonably?
Suddenly it doesn't matter that everyone has guns, and the situation is just escalated. The author of this article is incredibly naive to think all human beings will act rationally 100% of the time, which is the fault in a world that relies on order by a Mutual Assured Destruction like leviathan.
Not only that, guns give the power to the aggressor, ie the person who acts first. If you think about the 'prisoner's dilemma' type arguments, that means it's more attractive to act first and take control, than to hope the other person doesn't act at all.
Threats do not save lives; They escalate otherwise less harmful situations.
By your argument we should also ban scissors, as they can cut wires that could electrocute a whole bunch of people in a pool. And we should also ban cars, as crazy people might go on rampage and kill people with it. And we should also ban planes, because its easy for somebody to hijack it and kill hundreds of people with it.
If there was a magical way to get rid of all guns that'd be great. Unfortunately I think the problem we face (at least here in America) is that if guns were banned there would be many years of black marketing and there would also be the question of whether or not the standard police officers could carry guns or not.
I think getting over the initial hump of the few criminals who kept/stockpiled weapons while law-abiding citizens are defenseless would be very difficult to get over but afterward the result would be a safer country. It's a lot harder to rob a bank with a knife or to go on a rampage.
And once again we see an American defending his guns while the rest of the world stands around perplexed at his flawed opinion.
If I was having a bad day, there is NO way I would be able to get my hands on a gun in Australia. I dont know anyone who owns one, I dont know if there even are gun stores where I am, and I sure as hell wouldnt be able to buy one if I could find a store. And 99% of Aussies are in the same boat.
What does this mean? It means that the only people who are going to kill with guns are the ones who premeditate murder. The ones that plan out a method of aquiring a gun so they can kill someone. People do stupid things without thinking, so lets not arm everyone with a weapon that is designed to kill.
And just as a sidenote
(c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20
Your law encourages vigilantes? I hope everyone can see how insane that is.
On November 26 2008 15:12 ._. wrote: gun control doesn't stop shit. If a criminal is out to kill, he find any means necessary, and most criminals get their guns illegally. P&T on Gun controlllll
God, you're as bad as the Christian guy with his youtube videos.
Mock me after you seen the video. The guy's an atheist and I'm too, plus he's a well respected personality. Go figure.
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
On November 26 2008 15:51 cgrinker wrote: Maybe this is a good short term solution, but shouldn't we eventually stop being violent?
The idea is that you use force (in this case in the form of a gun) to be able to equalize the playing field between everyone.
I think that the short term vs long term discussion has almost no merit, because the weapons might change, but I don't think anything in the discussion changes.
Legalized guns would flood my country with guns. The crimefigures in my country are lower because a lot less people dare to attack or threaten somebody armed with a knife then with a gun. Hoodlums are a lot more daring with a gun.
Guns make crime easy. The criminal chooses situations where he has the initiative. So he already a has the gun drawn and aimed at you. So your right to bear arms is useless. Most murdervictims are killed by a familymember or a friend. So how does this work out for ya.
Having firearms at home works as a deterent. That is the only pro I see.
Since he's saying that all citizens should be equally armed, then why aren't we giving nuclear weapons to every country in the world? In fact you should give everyone enough nukes to destroy the world, then we'll all have to 'reason' with and 'persuade' each other to stay alive. Sounds like a great civilization to me.
it might depend on the culture. japan has no guns, yet it's very safe, probably because people havent had guns... ever.
but in america, you cant really get rid of guns, simply because the criminals knowing people arent armed will make them more dangerous. if they have to guess whether one has a gun or not, they might rather play it safe.
im not for guns, but in america at least, you cant really get rid of them because it'll cause more problems that the status quo
yea i have mixed feelings on this. Banning guns in America would definitely have more immediate negative side effects than positives...but it might work out better in the long run.....
As it stands now, I'm more for strict regulation than banning guns.
Why do people assume that most criminals are rational people who fear for their lives?.
Scenario 1: A drug addict greatly ravaged by withdrawal symptoms breaking into a villa to steal money for a new fix:
Person living in villa hears the cat, wakes up and goes down to let it in. Drug addict notices and has now a choice; stay or run. In most cases he will probably run, no matter what. It is simply easier to steal from people who doesn't notice. If he is desperate enough or high enough he will stay. If there is a decent liklihood of the owner carrying a gun our drug addict now has one option only, to shoot the owner before he can see him.
Most violent crimes are commited by people who are either drunk or high. In a world where everyone is armed these people don't have the option to just knock you down or hold you att knife point to take your money. (Don't try to argue that in a world with free guns noone will be poor or desperate~~) So instead they will shoot you from behind. Guns, more than any other weapon give the power to the agressor (criminal per definition). First one to shoot, wins.
In a city were civilians aren't armed your average violent drug addicted assholes won't have guns, they will have knives. You can run from somone with a knife (or fight him if you are so inclined), and even if you can't or if he happens to have a gun anyway there is still a decent chance of you surviving if you just give him your money.
Criminals will always be _more violent_ and better armed than the average joe, that's how they make their living. Thus, giving everyone guns will only force the criminals to arm themselves more heavily, and be more violent.
The only way to make people not want to rob, steal and murder (The ultimate civilization or whatever the OP called it) is to somehow create a society where _everyone_ is well fed, happy, content and most importantly integrated into society. I have no idea how to do that but arming everyone will do nothing.
On November 26 2008 16:21 village_idiot wrote: I agree with that article 100%
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
If you're getting attacked by a gangbanger or druggie asshole, it's not as if you won't be assaulted with a gun in the first place. Add a gun legalization law in addition to that, and you're even more likely to be threatened with a gun.
Not really trying to put a place for myself in this debate here, just wanted to say your post lacks substance and is not a strong argument at all for gun legalization.
On November 26 2008 16:21 village_idiot wrote: I agree with that article 100%
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
If you're getting attacked by a gangbanger or druggie asshole, it's not as if you won't be assaulted with a gun in the first place. Add a gun legalization law in addition to that, and you're even more likely to be threatened with a gun.
Not really trying to put a place for myself in this debate here, just wanted to say your post lacks substance and is not a strong argument at all for gun legalization.
We can just as easily assume you'd be less likely to be attacked at all.
On November 26 2008 16:21 village_idiot wrote: I agree with that article 100%
If I get attacked by some gangbanger or druggie asshole there's no way in hell a cop is somehow coming to magically protect me. That's when I need to protect myself.
Of course, if you live in a nice quiet suburb this can be difficult to understand...
If you're getting attacked by a gangbanger or druggie asshole, it's not as if you won't be assaulted with a gun in the first place. Add a gun legalization law in addition to that, and you're even more likely to be threatened with a gun.
Not really trying to put a place for myself in this debate here, just wanted to say your post lacks substance and is not a strong argument at all for gun legalization.
We can just as easily assume you'd be less likely to be attacked at all.
Well, I can see it going either way. However, either way I believe that it's better not to retaliate violence with gun possession, since I see it as detrimental to society overall. Why? As people had mentioned before, a gun serves two main purposes: to kill, or to deter. Say you find yourself in that situation where you're assaulted and you're forced to whip out your gun. The way I see it, it breaks down like this in a one-on-one scenario:
1. Assuming both of you own a gun, it comes down to whoever can draw first, or even possibly, whoever is more professionally trained with a gun. The shot goes off, and one of you will be either dead or severely injured. Same thing if the other guy does not own a gun, except the situation now becomes one sided.
2. Neither of you shoot, but both have the fear of the gun going off. I believe this may produce worse outcomes in the long run, messing with psychological issues coming from both the knowledge that even the guy next to you can take away your life in a heartbeat, and the desensitization that eventually comes after multiple gun usage scenarios.
Simply put, I believe owning a gun provides immediate protection from harm, but that in the long run, we'll find more damage done than good.
To support this OP's argument, you have to be one to believe that being mugged is worse than defending yourself and killing the mugger. I feel a lot of people in this thread would rather see a mugger get away with a small amount of money than for anyone to get hurt. It's kind of hard to argue this side if people believe that, for obvious reasons.
EPT
