|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Or just no guns, certainly not affordable guns.
|
On July 23 2012 01:38 valium wrote:
More likely to survive an encounter with a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun. So yes, I suppose I would feel safer defending myself with a knife.
But really, I would be carrying neither. I feel I have a better chance of escaping someone with a knife than a gun.
What happens when this person is attacking you family? you run away?
|
I certainly hope my family would be smart enough to run away. If this hypothetical person is attacking someone in my family who is physically unable to defend themselves in any way, then it would not matter what kind of weapon the assailant is using would it? I would use anymeans at my disposal at that moment to defend them, but as I said, I do not own a gun and do not make a habit of carrying knives. I would tackle the person regardless of their weapon, and strict gun laws would make it much less likely the weapon would be a gun.
|
So do i.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 23 2012 01:41 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:39 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 01:36 Roboturner wrote:On July 23 2012 01:33 valium wrote:
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use. So if a guy comes at you with a knife you would feel safer defending yourself with a knife? I'd feel safer with a gun but does the gun really need an extended clip? Ever heard of multiple assailants? ^^
Are they also ninjas that will throw the knives at you too? Will need the extra bullets to shoot them out of the air.
|
On July 23 2012 01:07 TGalore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 23:45 StarStrider wrote:On July 22 2012 22:01 TGalore wrote:On July 22 2012 20:03 StarStrider wrote:
A few points regarding the stance that retaliatory fire would do nothing or would 'make things worse':
-People insisting that regular citizens with proper training would by default be less accurate than a combat trained soldier or police officer is simply a false assertion. The assertion that they may react in more of a panic or adrenaline state/tunnel vision is true, but does this mean they would just close their eyes and start shooting randomly and hope they hit the bad guy and no one else? HARDLY.
-Most people would agree with you that in the darkness, smoke, and chaos, hitting the face would be unlikely from more than 15 feet. Unlikely does not mean impossible. But that also said, you need to do research on the impact a 9mm (most common CCW caliber) can have on the human body even through a kevlar vest. Your stance asserts this guy was basically invincible. He had a tac vest on. He may have had other pieces of armor on. I promise you he wasn't wearing an EOD type suit though. He wasn't.
-The face is not the only vulnerable area on this guy's body. Considering less than perfect conditions for our defender(s), a stray bullet could easily tag his arms, hands, elbows, legs, feet, etc. The assertion that bullets could not likely find their way into vulnerable locations is hard to believe.
-The argument that defenders would just aim for center body mass and wouldn't realize he was wearing armor has been proven incorrect, as every eyewitness knew he was armored even before he started shooting. Even so, see above and research how much effect even a 9mil has in direct impact even on center mass on body armor.
-Many with your point of view also like to paint out the scenario that we are neccesarily talking about a single concealed carry defender vs this heavily armed gunman. What if there were 5? It is simple wolfpack instinct to know that when he turns to fire at the first guy who shoots at him, that is when you take your shot. You don't need combat training to recognize this.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun (who has likely trained at a range a few times if he has a CCW permit) are much less than the odds of that gunman killing every person in the theater if no one stops him.
-The odds of an 'innocent bystander' being hit by a defender's gun are signifcantly reduced because everyone is already on the floor when the gas grenades popped. Everyone is already in the most ideal position not to get hit. The likelyhood that someone by random chance is going to jump up and accidentally get in your line of fire is slim.
-What percentage of patrons that night were likely CCW permit holders? Well, based on the average age of the audience at a midnight showing for Batman, I'd say it was pretty slim at ANY theater, even those in Texas and Mississippi. The assertion that someone in there had a personal protection firearm and didn't use it is unfounded and does nothing for this discussion.
-The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.
-83 people were shot. If you admit the number shot by a citizen defender in the chaos would be significantly less than that number, then you really have no case.
-The good guys are the ones shooting at the bad guy in the mask and body armor. Step 1: Shoot at the guy in the mask with the AR. Step 2: Don't shoot at the people in the theater seats who are shooting at the armored guy. Trying to say that multiple people with guns wouldn't realize who the fuck to shoot at is just the most stupid assertion I've ever heard.
And that is all just specific points about this incident. Concerning the debate on whether having CCW permit citizens around in other crimes: Given most criminal gunmen do not use body armor, I'd increase the likelyhood of a citizen defender being able to do something to stop them in any other given situation tenfold. Arguments like these are tantamount to blaming the victims for not being armed, in my opinion, and are revolting. It's like blaming a woman for being raped for either not having a weapon to defend herself or "asking for it." What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry a loaded weapon with them into a crowded, closed space full of children and families. It is not nor should it ever be ANY civilian's -responsibility- to be armed. Your post illustrates a common fantasy that so many who own guns seem to have, and that is that they are looking for an opportunity to be a "hero" by killing someone. They see themselves as reacting calmly, with perfect aim, against a more heavily armed assailant in a sudden high stress situation and saving a lot more lives than were lost. But that NEVER happens. It never has in any of the awful mass shootings in our country's history. Relaxed gun laws didn't help during Columbine or Virginia Tech. Hell, more people died at Fort Hood, a military base full of trained soldiers, than in Colorado. The majority of people don't want to carry guns and shouldn't have their safety and interests held hostage by a small percentage of the population that envisions themselves as moonlight superheroes. If those who were pro-gun were truly interested in reducing violence and gun crime rates, then they wouldn't be against so many of the gun safety and anti-proliferation laws that have been attempted to be passed. Would we have a lot less gun crime if all ammunition was serially coded and traceable through a federal database? Absolutely. Would fewer people have died this past week if this man wasn't able to obtain an automatic military assault rifle and instead only had legal access to handguns? More than likely. Should he have been able to buy FOUR GUNS in recent months (really, do you need more than one to defend yourself?) and SIX THOUSAND ROUNDS of ammunition over the INTERNET? I don't think so, but the NRA does and also thinks assault weapons, rampant untracked ammunition, and unlimited guns among the common population is a good idea. It makes me sick. That is a complete distortion. It is a total red herring. It is a complete jump in logic to say that because I claim people would have a better chance of defending themselves if armed than if unarmed, that I am somehow saying they deserve it for not being armed, or that their safety would have been guaranteed. I simply make the assertion that there is a slight chance that it could have been ended before 83 people were shot. Not even likely. Just possible. That possibility is worth carrying. I don't expect everyone to, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't and say 'well when you get raped or mugged, don't cry about it because I warned you'. I'm saying 'give yourself the best chance imo, even if it is a slim one.' How do you know? How many cases are there of killers who got taken out by an armed citizen before they had a chance to kill, that you might just not know about or never heard of because they didn't go national? You, in your infinite knowledge, have studied criminal cases for years and know this to be a fact? You have brought up several cases of mass murder where a citizen did not happen to act. That's it. What does that do for your case? Does this prove that a citizen with a gun could do nothing, because no citizen did anything? Why do you assume that there were concealed carry citizens there but they failed to act or failed to fire back before getting killed? If there were none there, doesn't this hurt, not help your argument? Does it prove that they tried to act but got taken out? How many corpses have we found with guns in their hands or on their person in these massacres? You don't know details like this. You don't know shit. But it's easy to act like you do on an internet forum, therefore everyone is an expert. You generalize and hypothesize. People like you want to marginalize the reality that real citizens with real skills at pointing and shooting could possibly make a difference in these scenarios by painting them out to be living out heroic fantasies from a comic book or a movie. Fuck you. This is real life. It's not about pride or glory or living out some fantasy. It's about possibly saving lives. How dare you marginalize that. You're the sick one friend. Not everyone thinks in terms of a fucking video game, and not everyone thinks as shallowly about it as you do or seem to imagine. I guess every cop just wants to be Magnum PI and every firefighter just wants to be Third Watch. They do it for the medals and ceremonies right? Please get your head out of your ass. For every mass murder you mentioned where no one stopped them with a firearm, I can link you to HUNDREDS of events where gun armed assailants were taken down citizens. Were these assailants intent on killing? How do we know they were going to murder people? Does it matter when you are threatened with a gun? The armed citizens never gave them a chance to find out. Thank god. Is this debate about whether citizens should carry, or whether AR's and ammo should be more strictly controlled? Why do you assume everyone on the pro-gun side wants guns to be free and available for all no matter who they are, what their background, or what kind of gun it is? I dare you to find a single pro-gun person in this thread who is opposed to background checks, psych checks, and mandatory handling and safety courses for all would be gun owners. If they are, they are just an idiot who should be ignored anyway because they are out of touch with reality. A. It is not a complete jump in logic to say that you're implying they gave up on their safety of themselves on their family more than someone who carried a gun. You said, and I quote, "The likelihood of the citizen defender being shot and killed in no way diminishes the fact that they are more likely to stop him by actually trying than by giving up and praying they don't get killed, like everyone else who didn't bring a firearm.B. It's a real red herring - which I'm not sure you understand the definition of - to dodge the question of whether or not current gun laws and the philosophy of gun ownership in the United States is faulty by instead drawing attention to hypothetical situations where everyone is armed and then also hypothesizing about what might have happened then. I'm saying that less guns and less ammunition available to potential psychopaths and being able to tack gun usage more is a good thing, and it is an absolute fact that pro-gun organizations are working against laws to address these issues. How is that distracting from the debate over gun ownership? C. I'm not talking about policemen, or fire fighters, or the military. They are trained professionals and deserve every ounce of our thanks for putting themselves in harms way to the benefit of all of us. I'm talking about people like the guy in my home town a few years ago who shot an unarmed robber against the orders of police on his neighbor's front lawn in broad daylight. I'm talking about cases like the Trayvon Martin shooting, which while unrelated to the Colorado shooting, certainly showcases a person who was, yes, looking for a situation to get more involved in than he should have and had a documented history of doing so. Citizens with a gun in those circumstances could, in a minute possibility, make a difference, and a positive one, I will gladly acknowledge that. But I get extremely offended when it is suggested that I am willfully giving up the right to safety and protection of myself and those I hold dear by not choosing to own something that is designed to kill people, and I am equally offended when it is proposed that everyone having a gun would somehow solve a lot of the problems we have. They're vastly complex and have a lot to do with economics, sociology, and race and class fragmentation (and yes, actually, I have taken classes studying crime - and there really is a correlation between gun laws we have and a prevailing false perception that the end goal of virtually all criminals is to kill people rather than make money or survive, and that attitude is also reflected in the ways we practice gun ownership). But, I reiterate my earlier point that we can still have a safe society and people can still be able to protect themselves with a lot fewer guns, a lot less dangerous types of guns, and more gun and ammunition accountability in the public domain.
A. Ah I can see why you might take that as insulting if you read it the wrong way. Here: It was meant to read as: "the odds of your survival increase if you fight for it vs not fighting for it" (as you acknowledge). It was not intended to be derogatory to those who do not/did not carry. It was meant to say: if you don't have a firearm, you can only put your hands up and lay down and start praying, because that is your only option. It wasn't intended to portray that as a weak or pussy thing to do. Does that make sense?
B. Red herring is to mislead or distract from the real issue by focusing on a different issue. I said that your statement of "What you're asserting here is that some of these people are dead because they chose not to carry" is a red herring because it is. Even if I was asserting that (which I wasn't, see above, you misinterpreted), it is red herring to try to distract from the discussion of whether guns are helpful or harmful in these situations by trying to make me out to be a cold calloused sunuvabitch who says 'if they don't carry they deserve it'. Get it? It's not red herring to not address a certain point though, it's simply dodging. But that 'dodge' wasn't intentional though. Let's talk about it. I agree with you that preventing psychopaths from obtaining assault grade items is a good thing. But if it is at the cost of a normal person obtaining personal protection grade items it is a bad thing. And I think the organizations would agree with you too, that we need to further laws that keep them out of the hands of psychos, as long as those laws don't keep normal people from getting their personal protection grade stuff. The whole assault grade item/ weapon debate is a different issue. I'd be happy to discuss that next if you like.
C. There are people who abuse the power of that arming themselves gives and take it too far. There are even people who want to act like vigilantes and cowboys, or who want to live out fantasies of being the hero like they see in video games. This is true. These people do not represent a signifcant portion of gun owners though, most are responsible and safe and would only pull it out if the situation was life and death. Your previous asserts that the fantasy is 'common' and is even illustrated by my ideas, which is just ludicrous. Oh, and if police and firefighters are in it for the pride or recognition, they are in it for the wrong reasons. Also, 'trained professional' is just a word, and the kind of training they receive isn't top secret or inaccessible. There are many training courses that responsible firearm owners choose to invest in that give them some of these skills, since they never know when they might need them. (close quarters combat, prone firing, disarmament, how to deal with elevated stress situations, how to deal with angry gunmen, etc). I have looked at a few myself.
Again, I never suggested that I think you're misinterpreting me. You're not 'giving up' on your safety or your family, you're simply 'giving up' a possible shot at having the power to change a situation that would otherwise be futile for you.
And I reiterate that, I would agree with you, if society changed overnight. But it can't and won't. You acknowledge the economic, social, race, religious, cultural etc etc problems we have. I recognize that giving everyone a gun won't solve them, but it will cause anyone who would threaten anyone else to think long and hard, knowing that he could be risking his life by doing so.
"I never expected him to be armed" Might become "I would never even try that now that I know anyone is likely to be"
|
On July 23 2012 01:45 valium wrote:
I certainly hope my family would be smart enough to run away. If this hypothetical person is attacking someone in my family who is physically unable to defend themselves in any way, then it would not matter what kind of weapon the assailant is using would it? I would use anymeans at my disposal at that moment to defend them, but as I said, I do not own a gun and do not make a habit of carrying knives. I would tackle the person regardless of their weapon, and strict gun laws would make it much less likely the weapon would be a gun.
Your odds of survival in 'tackling them regardless of their weapon' are much lower than if you had a gun. I don't like those odds, and I will keep my family safe regardless just like you, therefore I own a gun.
Also, doesn't matter whether they are 'able to defend themselves or not', its the level of threat the gun offers. I am much more likely to comply with a gun pointed at me than a knife. I am much more likely to comply with a knife held toward me than a can of pepper spray. The weapon does matter.
|
Honestly, I think handguns should be outlawed. Rifles and shotguns for home defense make sense, but I don't feel safe walking outside knowing crazy vigilantes like George Zimmerman are slinging high powered handguns. Or at least, handguns should be highly highly restricted. In an ideal society there would be no guns. However, it is hard to get guns out of criminals' hands. So we still need some way of defending ourselves. Unfortunately "self defense" is a broad term and often the in context the definition is more similar to "assault". If you want to shoot somebody intruding on your property who is threatening you or your family, sure. But I don't want people carrying guns near me in the public whether they are "trained" or not.
|
On July 23 2012 01:40 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:35 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:34 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good. Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership. Criminals would still get guns. This is a serious fallacy. If the sale of guns and ammunition is restricted, then the supply of guns and ammunition into the black market is severely restricted. If you were a criminal in a country where guns are heavily-regulated, I'm fairly certain on your quest to find guns, you'd be far more likely to find undercover police instead.
How serious? Gizmodo even commented on how easy it is.
Edit//
The fallacy is underestimating crime. The logic is that the law abiding citizen will play by the rules. A criminal is a criminal because they tend to not play by the rules. Not all criminals are stupid, and they definitely are not scarce. There are not enough police to be effective in preventing something as simple as the web page just sited. So the law abiding citizen who does not have the gun to defend himself is now the victim rather than enabled to defend himself intelligently.
To believe that laws will prevent guns, is just ignorance. There are laws against drugs, and drugs can be bought anywhere. All the laws do is increase the value of drugs, and breed corruption.
If you put laws on guns, what are you going to do... go door to door and demand that the household forfeit their guns? Sure there are registries that document who has them (which I support). But how many other rights will be violated by trying to round them all up? The collateral damage of outlawing guns will be more damaging to the nation than actually regulating it.
|
On July 23 2012 01:59 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:45 valium wrote:
I certainly hope my family would be smart enough to run away. If this hypothetical person is attacking someone in my family who is physically unable to defend themselves in any way, then it would not matter what kind of weapon the assailant is using would it? I would use anymeans at my disposal at that moment to defend them, but as I said, I do not own a gun and do not make a habit of carrying knives. I would tackle the person regardless of their weapon, and strict gun laws would make it much less likely the weapon would be a gun. Your odds of survival in 'tackling them regardless of their weapon' are much lower than if you had a gun. I don't like those odds, and I will keep my family safe regardless just like you, therefore I own a gun.
Don't agree with that at all. Since guns are ranged weapons, it makes running away less viable for those not in a defensible position. I'd fancy my chances a lot more vs an invader with a knife rather than a gun.
|
Research has shown that the presence of guns has not made any change on the amount of violent crime. The argument that many have made though, is that more dangerous weapons(such as assault rifles or pistols[as they can be concealed]) should be taken out of the market. A shotgun, either at home or on a gun rack in your car, is enough to deter most maniacs and protect your family.
Heard this on NPR earlier.
|
Northern Ireland22206 Posts
The people in this thread referring to "clips" and "high-powered handguns" (wtf counts as 'high powered') make me sad. It's sheer ignorance.
|
On July 23 2012 01:41 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:39 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 01:36 Roboturner wrote:On July 23 2012 01:33 valium wrote:
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use. So if a guy comes at you with a knife you would feel safer defending yourself with a knife? I'd feel safer with a gun but does the gun really need an extended clip? Ever heard of multiple assailants? ^^
Are you actually being serious right now..?
|
On July 23 2012 02:04 King.Tut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:40 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:35 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:34 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good. Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership. Criminals would still get guns. This is a serious fallacy. If the sale of guns and ammunition is restricted, then the supply of guns and ammunition into the black market is severely restricted. If you were a criminal in a country where guns are heavily-regulated, I'm fairly certain on your quest to find guns, you'd be far more likely to find undercover police instead. How serious? Gizmodo even commented on how easy it is.
I'm not sure I'd class that as "easy" and I also think it's a little out of reach of the average street level crook. I'd be amazed if that website wasn't full of sting operations and even on the chance that it's all legit and real, you still need to have the cash to be able to afford the high prices. Shipping disassembled weapons is one thing, but good luck getting live ammunition shipped through customs.
|
On July 23 2012 00:12 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:04 KingLol wrote:Unfortunately, for every story like the one about the 71 year old guy, there are stories like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-florida-protest-idUSBRE86J1DY20120720The problem with this thread (actually, more the entire pro-gun vs anti-gun debate) is that the pro-gunners have this very romanticised, fanatical view about guns which doesn't lend itself particularly well to objective reasoning; nevertheless, it's interesting to hear the views from both sides. That's an excellent example of police abuse of power and overreaction and violating that man's rights. Gun owners should never have to fear death because they are abiding by the law and exercising their constitutional rights.
It's an excellent example of how having a gun and pointing it at anything that is out of the ordinary will only put your life at risk, rather than making you safer.. Why wouldn't he ask who's knocking before throwing up his door with a gun pointed out? Why wouldn't he look out the window to see who's there?
If the person would have stood there with a knife instead I doubt the police would've shot him instantly.
It's a perfect example of how a person is taking the law in his own hands, and getting punished for it. If he instead would've called the police as fast as he heard someone knocking at his door in the middle of the night, and then proceeded to ask who's knocking calmly, instead of acting like Jason Statham, he would still be alive today.
|
On July 23 2012 02:05 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:59 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 01:45 valium wrote:
I certainly hope my family would be smart enough to run away. If this hypothetical person is attacking someone in my family who is physically unable to defend themselves in any way, then it would not matter what kind of weapon the assailant is using would it? I would use anymeans at my disposal at that moment to defend them, but as I said, I do not own a gun and do not make a habit of carrying knives. I would tackle the person regardless of their weapon, and strict gun laws would make it much less likely the weapon would be a gun. Your odds of survival in 'tackling them regardless of their weapon' are much lower than if you had a gun. I don't like those odds, and I will keep my family safe regardless just like you, therefore I own a gun. Don't agree with that at all. Since guns are ranged weapons, it makes running away less viable for those not in a defensible position. I'd fancy my chances a lot more vs an invader with a knife rather than a gun.
Not my point. He said 'regardless of the weapon'. I assume that means a gun too. I fancy my chances against any small weapon, including a gun, with a gun of my own. Even most criminals with a gun will respect it and run, because most are cowards and are clever enough to realize your wallet isn't worth risking their life to find out if you'll use it, or if you're a better shot.
|
On July 23 2012 02:18 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:12 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 00:04 KingLol wrote:Unfortunately, for every story like the one about the 71 year old guy, there are stories like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-usa-florida-protest-idUSBRE86J1DY20120720The problem with this thread (actually, more the entire pro-gun vs anti-gun debate) is that the pro-gunners have this very romanticised, fanatical view about guns which doesn't lend itself particularly well to objective reasoning; nevertheless, it's interesting to hear the views from both sides. That's an excellent example of police abuse of power and overreaction and violating that man's rights. Gun owners should never have to fear death because they are abiding by the law and exercising their constitutional rights. It's an excellent example of how having a gun and pointing it at anything that is out of the ordinary will only put your life at risk, rather than making you safer.. Why wouldn't he ask who's knocking before throwing up his door with a gun pointed out? Why wouldn't he look out the window to see who's there? If the person would have stood there with a knife instead I doubt the police would've shot him instantly. It's a perfect example of how a person is taking the law in his own hands, and getting punished for it. If he instead would've called the police as fast as he heard someone knocking at his door in the middle of the night, and then proceeded to ask who's knocking calmly, instead of acting like Jason Statham, he would still be alive today.
Didnt read very well, he asked who was there but the police did not announce themselves (which apparently they don't have too there?) so he brought his gun because it could have been an intruder. How was he suppose to know it was the police at like 3 AM in the morning beating on his door?
Perfect example of not reading what you're talking about.
|
On July 23 2012 02:18 KingLol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 02:04 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:40 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:35 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:34 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good. Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership. Criminals would still get guns. This is a serious fallacy. If the sale of guns and ammunition is restricted, then the supply of guns and ammunition into the black market is severely restricted. If you were a criminal in a country where guns are heavily-regulated, I'm fairly certain on your quest to find guns, you'd be far more likely to find undercover police instead. How serious? Gizmodo even commented on how easy it is. I'm not sure I'd class that as "easy" and I also think it's a little out of reach of the average street level crook. I'd be amazed if that website wasn't full of sting operations and even on the chance that it's all legit and real, you still need to have the cash to be able to afford the high prices. Shipping disassembled weapons is one thing, but good luck getting live ammunition shipped through customs.
You're right, and what you said kind of supports my point (check my edit on that post).
If they outlaw guns or ammunition out right, it will create even more black market potential. It will be come Marijuana (not literally... although using some transmutation on all the guns to turn it to Marijuana would possibly be one way to mellow out crime... *tongue in cheek*). It will be even more readily available on the streets because it will trickle down from some dealer at the top- like cocaine or any other outlawed substance. Criminals will become even more innovative in their attempts to make money off guns.
|
On July 23 2012 02:25 King.Tut wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 02:18 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 02:04 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:40 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:35 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:34 KingLol wrote:On July 23 2012 01:31 King.Tut wrote:On July 23 2012 01:09 EienShinwa wrote:
The question is, when have guns EVER protect anyone in the name of self defense rather than in the name of racism or hate crimes? here: Guns used for greater good. Please check my link in the quotes of the previous post. Both stories show the fortunate and less-fortunate outcomes of gun-escalated situations, but the one thing they have in common is that it's likely neither situation would have occurred had there not been widespread gun ownership. Criminals would still get guns. This is a serious fallacy. If the sale of guns and ammunition is restricted, then the supply of guns and ammunition into the black market is severely restricted. If you were a criminal in a country where guns are heavily-regulated, I'm fairly certain on your quest to find guns, you'd be far more likely to find undercover police instead. How serious? Gizmodo even commented on how easy it is. I'm not sure I'd class that as "easy" and I also think it's a little out of reach of the average street level crook. I'd be amazed if that website wasn't full of sting operations and even on the chance that it's all legit and real, you still need to have the cash to be able to afford the high prices. Shipping disassembled weapons is one thing, but good luck getting live ammunition shipped through customs. You're right, and what you said kind of supports my point (check my edit on that post). If they outlaw guns or ammunition out right, it will create even more black market potential. It will be come Marijuana (not literally... although using some transmutation on all the guns to turn it to Marijuana would possibly be one way to mellow out crime... *tongue in cheek*). It will be even more readily available on the streets because it will trickle down from some dealer at the top- like cocaine or any other outlawed substance. Criminals will become even more innovative in their attempts to make money off guns.
The title of the thread is "Should be people be allowed to own and carry guns?", not "How should we ban guns in the USA". The original poster isn't even from the USA and actually refers to Finland in his original post. In a practical sense, implementing gun control laws in the USA is a lot more complex since the country is utterly infested with firearms and would have to be a long process probably starting with the regulation of ammunition or similar.
edit: I'm also not sure how you think that restricting the sale of guns would lead to more being available on the black market. If less people are buying guns, the supply will drop correspondingly from the manufacturers.
|
On July 23 2012 01:47 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:41 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On July 23 2012 01:39 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 01:36 Roboturner wrote:On July 23 2012 01:33 valium wrote:
The people fighting so hard for their right to bear firearms just want guns, they use excuses and flawed logic to get what they want. These are the fanatical idiots I refer to. If they were really so concerned with self defense they would be doing their best to rid the world of firearms, that is a more fanatic devotion that has some constructive use. So if a guy comes at you with a knife you would feel safer defending yourself with a knife? I'd feel safer with a gun but does the gun really need an extended clip? Ever heard of multiple assailants? ^^ Are they also ninjas that will throw the knives at you too? Will need the extra bullets to shoot them out of the air.
Well if you presume you'll hit each target with a single round (which seems unlikely because even the US military hits about 1 insurgent for every 250,000 rounds fired. So take that to the gun holding civilian? 4-5 attackers, 1 clip? might want those extra rounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
