|
On November 29 2008 06:09 Killy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2008 15:05 BlackJack wrote: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!
That's because you think you know how to pull a gun on someone, wait till someone actually does, you'll piss your pants I guarantee it.
What if there was a world wide kalamity and we had to use them to hunt our own food?
Very rational, good point.
Aren't guns also to protect us from our own government? I believe it is part of our freedom.
I have never even heard this argument before. What are you going to do anyway? Kill the army by yourself? Who the fuck do you think you are, lol.
U guys can all give your money to muggers, but I'm going to protect my family.
If a mugger points a knife at you and comes at you and you lose your nerves and shoot him, you might end up in jail, all this over losing a few dollars. Good job protecting your family there ace! Because muggers are famous for robbing families instead of lonely old guys in dark alleys, right?
P.S. People get mugged in other cities..
Oh wow I see we're dealing with a very intelligent guy here, yeah the point was that only in Detroit people get mugged, good reading skills. No chance he meant Detroit is a more criminal city than most.
People like you is why there need to be gun laws, you think you're some goddamn hero but you're just some stupid kid who's going to get himself killed. You're not rambo, just give up and accept losing some money once in awhile while humanity is figuring out a better way. Humans have very strong coping behavior for losing some money, loss of life on the other hand is where our limitations begin.
And if you think shooting a mugger has anything to do with justice you're sadly mistaken.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 28 2008 23:40 BottleAbuser wrote:
"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.
it's enough to say that if you disagree with me, i know how the world works a liiiiiiittle better than you do
|
On November 29 2008 08:34 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +Aren't guns also to protect us from our own government? I believe it is part of our freedom. I have never even heard this argument before, this goes against democracy. What are you going to do anyway? Kill the army by yourself? Who the fuck do you think you are, lol.
You kind of have to understand that this is how America was founded, hence the reason it was written into the constitution. If you think an armed populace cannot resist organized military force, think again. Look at Iraq, look at countless examples in history of how successful guerilla campaigns can be even in a total war scenario.
The rise of the Nazi Party in Germany was preceded by harsh gun control measures and eventual confiscation. The same thing happened before Stalin's reign in the USSR.
Gun control is a band-aid, ineffective solution to fundamental problems in American society.
|
I only read the first page. The problem with Chef's counter to the OP is this: The OP speaks on behalf of the rational, common person. He assumes people are rational. Chef's counter-argument is to bring up the irrational people, a view that seems to inflate the number of "crazies" out there. I think this distrust of the general public is the result of TV shows. Despite popular broadcasting and popular music, most people DO think twice about killing someone or inflicting pain in someone.
I mean, I could use the same argument and say, "WHAT, DON'T LET EVERYBODY VOTE! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CRAZIES, THEY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY!" It doesn't make sense to vest your argument in the deficiencies of a minority group of people. Pro-gun people are vesting themselves in individual responsibility. Why would you think another person is more likely to kill you because they have a gun on them? Because you watch too much Sopranos, that's why. And every anti-gun nut seems to ignore the significant deterrent to violence that an armed populace brings. Why would you disenfranchise good people from defending themselves against the few predators that are out there?
|
agree 100%, Banning guns is stupid.
|
If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:>
|
Let's take mugging as an example. As it is right now, there are some people who mug other people. Most of these are armed and some of these carry guns. Most of their victims are unarmed, some carry personal defense items such as mace and some even carry firearms. Now, there are a lot of permutations here where either the mugger wins or the victim wins but let's ignore these.
If everyone were to carry firearms, it's reasonable to say that every single mugger would carry one too. Thus, the argument that firearms discourage criminals lacking them doesn't pan out, because if every person who doesn't commit crime is able to and feels the need to get a gun, criminals certainly will. Now, we have every mugger armed with a firearm and who will always be the first one to draw their weapon, being the aggressors. Since everyone carries firearms, the mugger is certainly aware that his victim has the potential of drawing his/her own weapon and using it (Disregarding the fact that many people would be soiling themselves under gunthreat). Now, the mugger might be experienced or cool headed enough to be business like about the whole thing, leaving you alive and him with your possessions, including your weapon.
He might also be the nervous type who squeezes the trigger as you reach into your pocket, since you might have a gun there, yes? He might even consider simply shooting you first to make sure that it won't be an issue.
See where I'm going with this? By granting everyone weapons, you are in effect cementing the worst case scenario of a mugging: Your assailant is carrying a firearm. While you carry one yourself, the likelihood of being able to use it is slim. Even if you do have the opportunity to use your gun, not everyone reacts to a situation like that by whipping it up and capping the other dude one. Some people freeze, some people just hesitate, some people are flooded with adrenaline, causing their hands to shake and them to miss. Whipping out a gun against another person with a gun and failing to use it will result in you getting seriously hurt or dying.
|
On December 03 2008 19:47 Boblion wrote:
If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:>
I don't think guns are the biggest problem in the criminality issue in America, though it certainly plays a part. The fact that most western-euro societies have vastly superior social safety nets is by far the biggest reason for the difference in criminalty between Western Europe and America.
I mean, sure you can try to defend yourself against a mugger, using a gun if that is your preference, but I just can't see the point. You might die, you might have to kill the mugger and the possibility that you get away unscathed is slim. If you cooperate then the chance of you getting away without being seriously injured or killed is much higher. I guess the point is you have to measure your own capabilities to defend yourself and if it's even worth it to try. I'm leaving out the fact that the mugger would take your money, because in Sweden you get it all back + more from insurance, crime-victim fund and things like that. But that again, is a social safety net-issue.
I don't live in America and I try not to believe everything I hear or see about the criminality there but I can imagine that criminals are more ruthless and that people don't have the same security for their money, in which case people might feel inclined to try to defend themselves. Though I can't imagine why your money (the money in your wallet nonetheless, not in the bank) would be worth more than your life, even the risk of losing it. And taking a beating has to be prefereable to getting killed, no?
I can't really say much about guns as there practically are none in Sweden, and the criminals that have them rarely use them (other than to threaten) except when they kill eachother in gang-wars. Having a gun to defend yourself here is stupid beyond measure. Even if a mugger mugged you with a gun it would be better just to give him your money instead of attempting to kill him (which would be illegal in most cases). The mugger would'nt "make it easier" by killing you to get your money in a million years because he would have close to zero chance of getting away with it. But again that's a difference in societies. And that's my point, America needs a safer economy, especially for poor people if they want to tackle crime, not making everyone their own bodyguard with a license to kill, because people will just wind up dead, on either side of an argument.
|
On December 03 2008 19:47 Boblion wrote:
If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:>
Nobody is saying guns reduce criminality. The OP is making the conjecture that if most or all law abiding citizens carried guns, there would be less crime. The United States is not an example of this. A country like Switzerland is an example of this. Besides, there are many factors that make a country "dangerous" such as population density, poverty, and racial tension in heterogeneous societies. Look at the state of North Dakota, they have plenty of guns because hunting is a recreation there, but much less crime than most other States.
|
If I was someone looking to kill another person, I wouldn't hand over my gun because it's illegal -_-
Gangster: I'm sorry cops here's my gun let's be friends.
|
On December 04 2008 14:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2008 19:47 Boblion wrote:
If guns are so efficient to reduce criminality why US is a more dangerous country than most of the European Western countries where guns are banned or restricted ?
:> Nobody is saying guns reduce criminality. The OP is making the conjecture that if most or all law abiding citizens carried guns, there would be less crime. The United States is not an example of this. A country like Switzerland is an example of this. Besides, there are many factors that make a country "dangerous" such as population density, poverty, and racial tension in heterogeneous societies. Look at the state of North Dakota, they have plenty of guns because hunting is a recreation there, but much less crime than most other States.
:> means sarcasm.
I just wanted the pro-guns guys to acknowledge the others factors 
|
Very interesting article. Gonna get me a concealed carry permit soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
