|
On November 26 2008 21:36 KlaCkoN wrote:
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.
there is also quite a good chance that if he has the gun and you fork over the money he'll kill you anyways to not leave any witnesses. By our own argument, these are very unstable people, and they can do crazy things.
The argument that people seem to be floating is that its better to let a mugger take ur money than to shoot and kill him. Here's the thing: without a negative deterrant, you'll have more and more muggers, who would be like "hey these guys are mugging people and getting away with it, we can do it too!" sure we have law enforcement but they are pretty bad at dealing with muggers, lets face it.
|
On November 27 2008 02:42 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2008 21:36 KlaCkoN wrote:
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.
there is also quite a good chance that if he has the gun and you fork over the money he'll kill you anyways to not leave any witnesses. By our own argument, these are very unstable people, and they can do crazy things. The argument that people seem to be floating is that its better to let a mugger take ur money than to shoot and kill him. Here's the thing: without a negative deterrant, you'll have more and more muggers, who would be like "hey these guys are mugging people and getting away with it, we can do it too!" sure we have law enforcement but they are pretty bad at dealing with muggers, lets face it.
Yes, that risk is there (and it happens). About 2000 meters from my home back in Sweden someone got jumped from behind by two kids he didn't know. They literally tore his face of before taking his wallet and running away.
No my argument has nothing to do with wether or not it is wrong to shoot someone in selfdefense.
My argument is based on the fact that there is no correlation between number of guns around and number of desperate outcasts.
If there are a lot of guns around that forces said desperate outcasts to step up the level of violence (ie kill first ask later).
And as a law abiding citizen you will always lose out in such a situation, since you can never shoot first and ask later.
|
this is such machismo bullshit.
|
On November 27 2008 03:01 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2008 02:42 Caller wrote:On November 26 2008 21:36 KlaCkoN wrote:
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.
there is also quite a good chance that if he has the gun and you fork over the money he'll kill you anyways to not leave any witnesses. By our own argument, these are very unstable people, and they can do crazy things. The argument that people seem to be floating is that its better to let a mugger take ur money than to shoot and kill him. Here's the thing: without a negative deterrant, you'll have more and more muggers, who would be like "hey these guys are mugging people and getting away with it, we can do it too!" sure we have law enforcement but they are pretty bad at dealing with muggers, lets face it. No my argument has nothing to do with wether or not it is wrong to shoot someone in selfdefense. My argument is based on the fact that there is no correlation between number of guns around and number of desperate outcasts.
But there is a correlation between the number of guns around, and the number of defenseless people that are easy victims for muggers. The OP cares less about a so called mugging deterrent, and more about people trying to take away his right to protect himself. If there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of desperate outcasts, why bother taking guns away from law abiding citizens? Isn't that exactly what muggers want?
|
When one or two knives, canes, bats, or sprays are in play, it's likely that somebody will get seriously hurt. Guns are similar, except instead of getting hurt, you get killed. In addition, it's impossible to be defensive with a gun. If somebody has a knife and you have something to defend yourself with, the mugger needs to think twice about attacking, because he might get hurt, and you have the ability to put yourself on the defensive, or run if need be. This is not so with a gun; if somebody is pointing a gun at you, the only thing you can do to "defend" yourself is pull out your own gun, and somebody will probably die. Suddenly every confrontation becomes lethal.
And to be honest, suppose you get jumped by a mugger with a gun. Expecting you to have a gun, he orders you to put your hands up and lie face down on the ground rather than waiting for you to reach into your pocket. The difference between that and a normal mugging is that people are much more liable to die. Keeping your hands in your pockets? What if you see somebody with their hands in their pockets? What if they're about to mug you? If you make a (read-as) threatening motion, will he pull it out? Will you let him pull it out? Again, every confrontation is potentially lethal.
The idea is not to give the mugger the monopoly on force. The idea is to grant the police the monopoly on force.
And with respect to completely fucked up people, come on. If they have a gun, they can kill you whether or not you have a gun.
|
On November 27 2008 08:46 EmeraldSparks wrote:
And to be honest, suppose you get jumped by a mugger with a gun. Expecting you to have a gun, he orders you to put your hands up and lie face down on the ground rather than waiting for you to reach into your pocket. The difference between that and a normal mugging is that people are much more liable to die. Keeping your hands in your pockets? What if you see somebody with their hands in their pockets? What if they're about to mug you? If you make a (read-as) threatening motion, will he pull it out? Will you let him pull it out? Again, every confrontation is potentially lethal.
Getting mugged when you don't have a gun is not much different than getting mugged with a gun that you don't pull out. Unless you're crazy, you're probably not going to pull out a gun on a mugger that already has a gun on you. But you will have an advantage against muggers without guns, or even the ones with guns when they turn their back to make their get away lol
|
May I point out that people who are not considered old enough to drink have a very available, much more lethal weapon than guns? A maniac in a car could easily kill dozens of people if he was in a crowded area and thought it through beforehand.
As an aside, do you drive every day terrified of every other driver around you, afraid that he might turn out to be a killer, and freak out at every "threatening motion?" Remember, these things are more powerful than guns.
Giving crazies a weapon isn't, in my opinion, a factor that should keep us from an otherwise desirable option - they will always, always end up getting a weapon anyways, and nothing says that the alternative will be any "safer."
Now, I won't pretend to know how many muggers, facing a hypothetical armed population, would say "fuck it let's go home" rather than "shoot first steal later." But my understanding is that many robbers try very hard not to kill anyone, even as they are performing other criminal acts. I doubt that suddenly every mugging will turn into a murder, as EmeraldSparks suggested.
To clear things up a little, the OP was suggesting that everyone carries guns in a civilized society (and I think that in a civilized society, the opposite could also be true). It is not discussing the legality of carrying guns. But since this seems to interest some people, I point out that making guns illegal simply keeps law-abiding citizens (by definition!) unable to carry guns, and does not keep the criminals from killing others.
|
A little bit more about the legality of carrying arms:
The second amendment specifically states that a private citizen can own and carry arms. There's only one way to read that. If the reasoning behind this law is outdated (and there are some pretty compelling arguments that it is), then we can change it - remember, we're talking about the constitution, which can be amended as the times and situations change. How gun control legislators passed gun control laws without first removing the second amendment (via another amendment) is astonishing to me. Gah, they're worse than the biblical literalists who say it's now OK to eat pork and no longer OK to marry more than one person - at least they don't have the means to change their authority.
|
I'm very much against gun control, but not from the angle of promoting a more peaceful society or dealing with crime (though i'm sure countless lives have been saved by the responsible use of firearms in self-defense).
The argument made by proponents of the 2nd amendment (maintaining the relevance of democracy) is much stronger imo.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
i lol at this train of thought
what happens when every innocent, responsible citizen has a gun? the muggers are gonna keep mugging people unarmed? or they're magically gonna get real jobs and contribute to society because everyone they try to mug has a gun?
lolllllll
|
I don't know. I'm sure that they won't simply implode because the physical law that muggers have to exist was violated. Maybe they really will get real jobs, or they'll start stealing more sneakily, or they'll just attack people anyways and get shot. The "I can't imagine your scenario" is a non-argument.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 28 2008 19:59 BottleAbuser wrote:
I don't know. I'm sure that they won't simply implode because the physical law that muggers have to exist was violated. Maybe they really will get real jobs, or they'll start stealing more sneakily, or they'll just attack people anyways and get shot. The "I can't imagine your scenario" is a non-argument.
its just dumb to assume that giving people guns will solve anything
|
"It's dumb." That's better. Care to point out which parts? I mean, it's pretty dumb to assume that the problem will solve itself. And equally as dumb to say so.
|
the problem wont solve itself, but its the police job to solve it not some untrained civilians with guns. We have strict gun laws and it works fine. Sure you can get a gun on the black market, but if he is found having a gun he will face serious consequences. Owning a gun isnt the problem, but carrying it in public is and should be forbidden.
|
Surely you don't leave your door unlocked because the police would enforce any trespass or theft laws that might be broken on your property. Some people even install potentially fatal deterrent devices, such as electric fences and trained dogs.
Yes, there is a difference between your own property and walking around in public, but it still stands that it is accepted and maybe even encouraged to take "the law into your own hands" in this manner.
|
Eletric fences or fatal deterrent devices? never heard of that here and the door is only locked if you are not at home. Depends on the neighbourhood though.
|
Lollll, all these pro-gun people watch too many movies. You're not John McClaine, you're not gonna be able to shoot a guy when he's got it pointed at your head already.
Think rationally for a second—why the hell would the guy who is mugging you book when he sees you go for your pocket? He's robbing YOU, meaning he's got nothing to lose. In jail, he'd have three meals a day and access to all sorts of drugs to get his fix. Cornered animals just don't bend over. Most criminals are just looking for the money and trying to run, but shit, they certainly aren't going to give you the chance to pull something out.
And even if everyone is strapped, I'm going to echo the honorable FakeSteve's comments—what the fuck do you expect them to do? Get a 9 to 5? It's just going to mean more pre-emptive shootings, more trigger-happy trash. Not to mention, they aren't totally retarded.
Who here has been mugged, or knows someone who was? 9 times outta 10, you don't even see it coming. They get you from behind, and you wouldn't have a chance to do anything.
And just giving guns to any random idiot assumes that the world is filled with rational people. I'm sorry, I don't feel like having the bar fight that would normally end up with a few bruises and a lumped ego turn into doctors plucking shells outta my ass. Or the road rage incident end with a slug in my temple.
|
To handle a situation like getting mugged with a gun responsibly is impossible in most situations (because the mugger is already pointing a knife or gun at you usually), even with lots of psychological and physical training. You would be too scared to do anything, instead of forming theories about being mugged what some of you are doing, you should imagine someone pointing a gun at you, I think you gun supporters would be a little more realistic then.
Allowing people to carry guns in the most pointless constitutional right I've ever heard. A gun is useless without the proper training. Even cops accidentally shoot people dead in situations that could've been easily handled with a simple shot in the leg, consider that.
And that piece of text quoted in the OP is written by a total idiot. Who the hell argues about reason and force without considering the fact that guns only lead to more violence from either side, you don't make a policy that endangers both parties over something as trivial as a few dollars in most cases. Death is something we want to avoid, yes, even with muggers. Killing someone over a mugging is pathetic. And we don't want people to walk around with guns untrained because hotheaded douchebags will be likely to pull out a gun in other situations as well.
The amount of anti gun arguments vs pro gun arguments is overwhelming, the supposed freedom that having a gun grants is trivial anyway, you won't be able to do shit with it.
|
On November 26 2008 14:55 Ghost151 wrote:
The source from the OP makes the true point that (hand)guns are equalizers.
Yes, they are equalizers in the sense that it makes the criminals get on an equal footing with the law enforcement. A city with barely any civilan/criminal guns is a city where the criminals can't even try to fight the police, if the police comes the criminals have no other choice than to run and thus policemen do not need to fear the criminals.
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
However almost all illegal guns in the USA were once legal guns, thats the reason it is so easy to get the illegal ones, that you are each year making enough guns to arm 5% of your population. If you live in a country where the amount of legal guns are extremely low the black market will also be in a short supply and therefore criminals will have a very hard time getting one which means that most criminals you will ever meet do not got a gun.
|
On November 26 2008 15:05 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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. Would you feel safer in Detroit even if there weren't guns? And if you had to walk around a Detroit ghetto, would you want to bring a gun or stay unarmed?
I live in Detroit, and I definetly feel safer with my gun!
What if there was a world wide kalamity and we had to use them to hunt our own food?
Aren't guns also to protect us from our own government? I believe it is part of our freedom.
U guys can all give your money to muggers, but I'm going to protect my family.
P.S. People get mugged in other cities..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
