|
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. |
The funny thing is: I think America's gun laws are right for American culture. I just don't like the way that people claim that American gun laws make American's safer. American gun laws cause more American deaths. But, the whole point of the USA is that it is the land of the free, where there is a little government intervention as possible. If someone were to simply say that freedom to bear arms is a core part of American culture I would not try to argue with that. But people saying that guns do not cause a lot of deaths in ridiculous.
|
On December 15 2012 05:47 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:
His scenario is not an appeal to emotion. This actually happened to me. It's a real scenario. And one that people are faced with. Re-read the way he worded it and the ending. That's the appeal to emotion part, regardless of whether it's a scenario that occurs. These kinds of arguments are always devoid of facts or statistics, or the statistics are ignored.
Actually, it's an appeal to logic. Who deserves more protection under law, the person violating the rights of others, or the person having their rights violated? The law tends to say the person having their rights violated gets more protection, hence, the criminals losing certain rights, like when they're in prison.
The only difference, then, is when it occurs, and before they harm others sounds better than after.
|
On December 15 2012 05:52 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:42 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:37 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism  But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:
[quote]
You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them.
I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. I simply doubt the "countless". And I doubt the situation "it is my life or the life of the thiefes" occurs oh so often. I thought you were living in a first world country not fucking somalia. If it's enough to not be readily counted, it's countless enough for countless. And if it's a choice of my physical well-being vs a dead criminal, I'm content with a dead criminal. It could also be that it happens that rarely that nobody counts it. All you do is throw around the "but what if I and my family are threatened with deadly force". And I call it bullshit: You are living in a first world country. You are not at war. Why do you make up scenarios like you are at Afghanistan fighting Osama bin Laden?
Because based on the comments in this thread, every burglar in the US is out to harm you. He intents to rape your face and steal your pets after you're dead.
|
On December 15 2012 05:49 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe  At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. Of course you don't, i mean what redneck would actually know when most of them never shot a weapon to a mobile person on their fucking life. Unfortunately, i had, and i also trained the recruits at shooting, which even people with background using weapons, they are still really unlikely to pull the trigger when the time comes. You think you are safer because you have a gun, in reality you are not because you lack the training, the experience and you are more likely to get shot than kill the robbers if they are armed and had actually planned how to break into your house. If they planned to rob mine (which is more unlikely than yours, even with a gun), they wouldn't be armed.
You clearly don't know a damn thing about americans and their situation with firearms and violent home invasions so stop pretending you do.
|
On December 15 2012 05:53 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:48 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 05:42 divito wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:
However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. Appeals to emotion make my brain hurt. Let's avoid fallacies people. His scenario is not an appeal to emotion. This actually happened to me. It's a real scenario. And one that people are faced with. Seriously. If these people ever get robbed and their families lives are at risk, they'd change their minds and have some sort of practicial tool for self defense like a gun if they are lucky enough to survive the encounter. I don't need that to happen to me, I can't imagine waking up at night and hearing 3 people break into your home not knowing what the hell they are going to do. I had no idea you were some sort of prophet who knows how people will react to these situations.
Thanks I didn't know that either.
|
On December 15 2012 05:50 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:48 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:46 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. It's common sense, not fantasy. If a criminal's objective is to kill you, and he is armed and you are not, then the criminal will kill you. But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them. I have no fear of armed criminals. No one has ever stolen from me (as of yet). If a criminal wanted my money then it is highly likely that they will be unarmed and try to steal it without me noticing. I am comfortable in being in an unarmed confrontation if needed. Even if I am outnumbered, worst case I get beaten up a bit. I would not be comfortable being armed vs armed criminals, as someone is going to get killed. a criminal is someone who commits a crime, i think you are confusing "criminal" and "thief" I don't know what in the world goes on in your country but here someone who breaks and enters or steals is a criminal.
since you don't seem to understand what i was responding to, i will put it as clearly as i can for you
he said:
"But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them."
my response is that a criminal by definition is someone who commits crimes, a criminal can be anyone who commits a crime, it also encompasses serial killers who may not give a shit about money, and only about killing
if you replace "criminal" with "thief" in his post, it makes sense logically, while if you leave it as is, you are saying that all criminals are thieves and do nothing but steal
does that make sense to you?
|
On December 15 2012 05:53 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:49 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:[quote] And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. Of course you don't, i mean what redneck would actually know when most of them never shot a weapon to a mobile person on their fucking life. Unfortunately, i had, and i also trained the recruits at shooting, which even people with background using weapons, they are still really unlikely to pull the trigger when the time comes. You think you are safer because you have a gun, in reality you are not because you lack the training, the experience and you are more likely to get shot than kill the robbers if they are armed and had actually planned how to break into your house. If they planned to rob mine (which is more unlikely than yours, even with a gun), they wouldn't be armed. You clearly don't know a damn thing about americans and their situation with firearms and violent home invasions so stop pretending you do.
Yes, i am pretty sure you are all goddamned marksmen.
|
On December 15 2012 05:55 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:53 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:49 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. Of course you don't, i mean what redneck would actually know when most of them never shot a weapon to a mobile person on their fucking life. Unfortunately, i had, and i also trained the recruits at shooting, which even people with background using weapons, they are still really unlikely to pull the trigger when the time comes. You think you are safer because you have a gun, in reality you are not because you lack the training, the experience and you are more likely to get shot than kill the robbers if they are armed and had actually planned how to break into your house. If they planned to rob mine (which is more unlikely than yours, even with a gun), they wouldn't be armed. You clearly don't know a damn thing about americans and their situation with firearms and violent home invasions so stop pretending you do. Yes, i am pretty sure you are all goddamned marksmen.
You would be surprised. I've been firing my weapons weekly with my father since I was 12 years old as have many gun owners. Don't pretend no one knows how to use their weapon properly.
|
On December 15 2012 05:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:29 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family.
Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family.
You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. Of course not. But this is about societal change, not one particular scenario. You are more than in your right to defend yourself within reason. But prevalent attitudes toward guns in US are not actually making you safer, quite the opposite in the long run. Problem is that to get safer society you would need to suffer a period of being less safe. And that is why strict gun control is such a problematic thing in US. You are in local maximum, to get to a global one you first need to reach local minimum. In other first world countries gun ownership for defense is mostly nonsensical as it is more likely that it will cause you harm then help with any defense. However, the guns don't cause the problem, the people cause the problem. I sincerely doubt that if we built a giant electromagnet to collect every gun in the country, it would cease violent crime. It would just stop us from hearing the story of the young female stopping the violent ex-boyfriend instead of ending up in the hospital or worse.
Surely you're joking? Nobody thinks violent crime would cease. If the hypothetical situation arose where every gun was wiped out of the country, homicides and escalations resulting in death would CERTAINLY go down. There would still be violent crimes but it's a lot easier to kill with a gun purposefully or accidentally. Even as gun owner myself (12 gauge shotgun and .45 S&W) I can see this simple truth.
|
On December 15 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:46 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:[quote] And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. It's common sense, not fantasy. If a criminal's objective is to kill you, and he is armed and you are not, then the criminal will kill you. But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them. I have no fear of armed criminals. No one has ever stolen from me (as of yet). If a criminal wanted my money then it is highly likely that they will be unarmed and try to steal it without me noticing. I am comfortable in being in an unarmed confrontation if needed. Even if I am outnumbered, worst case I get beaten up a bit. I would not be comfortable being armed vs armed criminals, as someone is going to get killed. This is bullshit. My cousins' fiance was nearly beat to death in a random mugging down in Raleigh. All they wanted was the money. I'm sorry, but your opinion is so incredibly naive it hurts. You can't shoot a gun so you don't like guns. You can win a fist fight so you like fists. For someone who is trained in arms and has training for controlling armed situations, I'd rather have a gun 100% of the time. At least I know I'll be safe in that situation. Will it be more volatile? Maybe. But I won't have to worry about hidden weapons and I know 100% of the time I will walk away.
Unless the criminals actually shoot and kill you, having a gun does not make you invincible. Do you actually think that having a gun will make you walk away with no real injuries 100% of the time? Holy moly. that is some hero syndrome.
|
On December 15 2012 05:54 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:50 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:48 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:46 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:
[quote]
For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools.
Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. It's common sense, not fantasy. If a criminal's objective is to kill you, and he is armed and you are not, then the criminal will kill you. But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them. I have no fear of armed criminals. No one has ever stolen from me (as of yet). If a criminal wanted my money then it is highly likely that they will be unarmed and try to steal it without me noticing. I am comfortable in being in an unarmed confrontation if needed. Even if I am outnumbered, worst case I get beaten up a bit. I would not be comfortable being armed vs armed criminals, as someone is going to get killed. a criminal is someone who commits a crime, i think you are confusing "criminal" and "thief" I don't know what in the world goes on in your country but here someone who breaks and enters or steals is a criminal. since you don't seem to understand what i was responding to, i will put it as clearly as i can for you he said: "But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them." my response is that a criminal by definition is someone who commits crimes, a criminal can be anyone who commits a crime, it also encompasses serial killers who may not give a shit about money, and only about killing if you replace "criminal" with "thief" in his post, it makes sense logically, while if you leave it as is, you are saying that all criminals are thieves and do nothing but steal does that make sense to you?
No.
Please make it a little more clearer for me.
But to take you more seriously, criminals or thieves whatever you'd like to call them are very unpredictable. You can never be sure ahead of time the "thief" only wants to rob you and not try to murder you.
|
So weird. 90% of the time there is a school shooting it seems to happen in the same country.
A country that has some silly gun law that a majority of its citizens wants to keep.
I guess they find all these deaths less important than the freedom to carry a gun.
|
On December 15 2012 05:52 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:42 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:37 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:
[quote]
You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them.
I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. I simply doubt the "countless". And I doubt the situation "it is my life or the life of the thiefes" occurs oh so often. I thought you were living in a first world country not fucking somalia. If it's enough to not be readily counted, it's countless enough for countless. And if it's a choice of my physical well-being vs a dead criminal, I'm content with a dead criminal. It could also be that it happens that rarely that nobody counts it. All you do is throw around the "but what if I and my family are threatened with deadly force". And I call it bullshit: You are living in a first world country. You are not at war. Why do you make up scenarios like you are at Afghanistan fighting Osama bin Laden?
So you automatically assume that deadly force means land mines, RPGs, and AK's? Get your head out of the video game. People get killed and severely injured with kitchen knives and blunt objects. Obviously, the odds are lower, but fuck, people win the lottery. All that shit that always happens to someone else? Guess what, you're someone else to someone else.
A lot of violent crime is only not lethal because of modern medicine.
|
On December 15 2012 05:53 iLikeRain wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:52 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 05:42 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:37 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:
[quote]
i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. I simply doubt the "countless". And I doubt the situation "it is my life or the life of the thiefes" occurs oh so often. I thought you were living in a first world country not fucking somalia. If it's enough to not be readily counted, it's countless enough for countless. And if it's a choice of my physical well-being vs a dead criminal, I'm content with a dead criminal. It could also be that it happens that rarely that nobody counts it. All you do is throw around the "but what if I and my family are threatened with deadly force". And I call it bullshit: You are living in a first world country. You are not at war. Why do you make up scenarios like you are at Afghanistan fighting Osama bin Laden? Because based on the comments in this thread, every burglar in the US is out to harm you. He intents to rape your face and steal your pets after you're dead.
Well, I guess if there was a majority of people for stricter gun laws there would be less need for stricter gun laws 
|
On December 15 2012 05:53 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:48 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:45 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 05:42 divito wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:
However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. Appeals to emotion make my brain hurt. Let's avoid fallacies people. His scenario is not an appeal to emotion. This actually happened to me. It's a real scenario. And one that people are faced with. Seriously. If these people ever get robbed and their families lives are at risk, they'd change their minds and have some sort of practicial tool for self defense like a gun if they are lucky enough to survive the encounter. I don't need that to happen to me, I can't imagine waking up at night and hearing 3 people break into your home not knowing what the hell they are going to do. I had no idea you were some sort of prophet who knows how people will react to these situations.
When it happens to you, you know. It's life-changing. Mentally, it's the equivalent to getting raped. It's such a violation of your privacy and your person, there is no way it cannot change you. My mother didn't sleep at night for nearly a month after it happened. And it lingers. Even 5 years later, when I'm visiting I can tell she's shaken. I routinely get locked out when I go out at night... even though she knows I'm out. She'd rather have me wake her up to let me in than risk leaving a door unlocked. And this house is not in a bad neighborhood by ANY means. The doors were NEVER locked before it happened unless we were leaving for like a week at a time.
|
On December 15 2012 05:40 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:32 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. No it's not. What you are doing by having guns for self-defense is making the criminal move on to another house where the people don't have them. Why rob someone with a gun instead of someone who doesn't have one. Criminals do not burgle random houses. They usually plan the robbery in advance and cannot just move to another house. Have you ever discussed burglary with anyone who knows anything about it? (Police or crimianl) Can you provide me some evidence that backs up even a tiny inch of what you are saying? http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-then-the-police-poll-states/1. Would you B&E (break and enter) a home if you thought it occupied?
A. No — 88 percent (the other 12 percent are hard-core burglars).
2. Would you B&E a home if you knew the owner was home and maybe had a gun?
A. No — 95 percent (the other 5 percent are called cat burglars)
3. Would you B&E a home if you knew the owner was home and did, in fact, have a gun?
A. No — 100 percent (I told you they fear the homeowner).
No other survey I studied in my 27 years of law enforcement in Miami Metro Dade County did I see a 100 percent, not even for a Mother’s Day holiday.In the US, most criminals fear us, in your country it's appears to be the opposite.
Such a good source, as good as hearsay. Note that even without a gun there is 88% "prevention" rate. So you gained 12% and paid for that by having basically militarized and violent society in which you are more likely to get killed and more likely to get robbed (as the robbers actually do not know if you are home and/or own a gun thus making the above irrelevant).
And I do fear criminals, I am not stupid. But I am less likely to be a victim of serious crime than you so the amount of actual fear is much less.
|
On December 15 2012 05:56 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:35 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:
[quote]
You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them.
I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible. Of course not. But this is about societal change, not one particular scenario. You are more than in your right to defend yourself within reason. But prevalent attitudes toward guns in US are not actually making you safer, quite the opposite in the long run. Problem is that to get safer society you would need to suffer a period of being less safe. And that is why strict gun control is such a problematic thing in US. You are in local maximum, to get to a global one you first need to reach local minimum. In other first world countries gun ownership for defense is mostly nonsensical as it is more likely that it will cause you harm then help with any defense. However, the guns don't cause the problem, the people cause the problem. I sincerely doubt that if we built a giant electromagnet to collect every gun in the country, it would cease violent crime. It would just stop us from hearing the story of the young female stopping the violent ex-boyfriend instead of ending up in the hospital or worse. Surely you're joking? Nobody thinks violent crime would cease. If the hypothetical situation arose where every gun was wiped out of the country, homicides and escalations resulting in death would CERTAINLY go down. There would still be violent crimes but it's a lot easier to kill with a gun purposefully or accidentally. Even as gun owner myself (12 gauge shotgun and .45 S&W) I can see this simple truth.
I'm aware that gun crime requires guns. I just don't see guns as the root of the problem, they're just a means to an end. People who want to be violent will still be violent if they have less ways available. There was war and murder before the gun, after all.
I don't believe gun control is bad. I believe that it would be incredibly difficult, between our political climate, and the number of available firearms, to actually implement something effective, and since that's the case, I prefer to be armed.
|
On December 15 2012 05:57 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:54 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:50 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:48 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:46 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. It's common sense, not fantasy. If a criminal's objective is to kill you, and he is armed and you are not, then the criminal will kill you. But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them. I have no fear of armed criminals. No one has ever stolen from me (as of yet). If a criminal wanted my money then it is highly likely that they will be unarmed and try to steal it without me noticing. I am comfortable in being in an unarmed confrontation if needed. Even if I am outnumbered, worst case I get beaten up a bit. I would not be comfortable being armed vs armed criminals, as someone is going to get killed. a criminal is someone who commits a crime, i think you are confusing "criminal" and "thief" I don't know what in the world goes on in your country but here someone who breaks and enters or steals is a criminal. since you don't seem to understand what i was responding to, i will put it as clearly as i can for you he said: "But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them." my response is that a criminal by definition is someone who commits crimes, a criminal can be anyone who commits a crime, it also encompasses serial killers who may not give a shit about money, and only about killing if you replace "criminal" with "thief" in his post, it makes sense logically, while if you leave it as is, you are saying that all criminals are thieves and do nothing but steal does that make sense to you? No. Please make it a little more clearer for me. But to take you more seriously, criminals or thieves whatever you'd like to call them are very unpredictable. You can never be sure ahead of time the "thief" only wants to rob you and not try to murder you.
i don't know what you are trying to argue by saying that - i am mostly just trying to get the person i was responding to to use words appropriate for what he is actually saying so that his posts can make sense
|
Guns should be controlled. The current situation is not really working in America. How many more times must these sort of things happen there before people realise that? From reading this thread, still some way to go.
A very sad day.
|
On December 15 2012 05:57 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:54 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:50 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:48 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:46 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:41 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out. As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy. It's common sense, not fantasy. If a criminal's objective is to kill you, and he is armed and you are not, then the criminal will kill you. But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them. I have no fear of armed criminals. No one has ever stolen from me (as of yet). If a criminal wanted my money then it is highly likely that they will be unarmed and try to steal it without me noticing. I am comfortable in being in an unarmed confrontation if needed. Even if I am outnumbered, worst case I get beaten up a bit. I would not be comfortable being armed vs armed criminals, as someone is going to get killed. a criminal is someone who commits a crime, i think you are confusing "criminal" and "thief" I don't know what in the world goes on in your country but here someone who breaks and enters or steals is a criminal. since you don't seem to understand what i was responding to, i will put it as clearly as i can for you he said: "But why would a criminal want to kill you? Criminals want money. Criminals want to stay out of prison. Killing people does not help them." my response is that a criminal by definition is someone who commits crimes, a criminal can be anyone who commits a crime, it also encompasses serial killers who may not give a shit about money, and only about killing if you replace "criminal" with "thief" in his post, it makes sense logically, while if you leave it as is, you are saying that all criminals are thieves and do nothing but steal does that make sense to you? No. Please make it a little more clearer for me.
Criminal is everyone who commits crime. Thief is who breaks into homes. Bugs and insects.
His problem is you overgeneralizing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
