|
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. |
On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion. I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests?
Just because something comes from the government doesn't mean it's skewed; NCBI is closer to the Library of Congress than it is to some sort of bizarre propaganda wing. And I'm not sure why you expect him to get you access to the full article given the proprietary nature of journals these days.
Logging into academic journals is par for the course...do you understand what a public abstract is?
Edit: And this is assuming of course that the government has some historic "anti-gun" agenda, which is frankly even more bizarre. The national government isn't run by Michael Moore and has been split 40-60 towards gun rights for a decade with no real sign of shifting.
On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much.
Of course, as Franklin implicitly recognized it's much better to get both liberty and safety by becoming an ambassador.
|
On December 17 2012 16:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure Benjamin Franklin think that schools all around the country needs to have constant mass murders so you can define the word "liberty" while looking smug on an internet forum. I didn't want to touch on this earlier, because you Americans seems a bit touchy on the subject. But what in the world makes you think that a gun has anything to do with freedom? How are you more "free" by owning one? Do you honestly think there is going to be a tyranic goverment that you need to fight anytime soon? Do you think America is going to be invaded by Norway tomorrow? If the answer is no, then your "freedom" is an illusion.
Ben Franklin lived in a time when Indian conflicts could result in the massacre of entire villages and homesteads.
|
You want protection? Get a dog (and/or alarm system).
You want to increase the chances of yourself or someone in your family getting killed by accident or due to "self defense"? Get a gun.
|
On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much.
Truly responsible gun owners should care more than anyone about insuring it's difficult for irresponsible or incompetent people to obtain guns.
Stop using 'liberty' to defend America's ineffective and abhorrently broken firearm policies. There's so much room for improvement it's ridiculous. You're just protecting the 'rights' of idiots that are too volatile, too inexperienced, or too irresponsible to have guns.
|
Australia4427 Posts
Do you honestly think there is going to be a tyranic goverment that you need to fight anytime soon?
Ironic coming from someone living in Europe no?
I hear Germany implementing tough austerity measures on Greece, Spain & Italy is real popular over there right now, hoho!
|
On December 17 2012 19:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote + Do you honestly think there is going to be a tyranic goverment that you need to fight anytime soon? Ironic coming from someone living in Europe no? I hear Germany implementing tough austerity measures on Greece, Spain & Italy is real popular over there right now, hoho!
It's not like that. Tough desicions or necessary measures are needed now. Plus They're given a choice (I'm not really sure how much that's true but that's what I've been told.) If they want the ficancial aid they need to iplement those measures.
|
Basically, If there are more homeowners owning guns for defense. Doesn't the criminals just arm themselves even more to rob you?
I'm no expert on gun politics but it seems like countries where guns are illegal / Very hard to obtain there's less crime?
At least from a Norwegians perspective.
|
On December 17 2012 20:10 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Basically, If there are more homeowners owning guns for defense. Doesn't the criminals just arm themselves even more to rob you?
I'm no expert on gun politics but it seems like countries where guns are illegal / Very hard to obtain there's less crime?
At least from a Norwegians perspective.
Same in the Netherlands. Your run-of-the-mill regular criminal doesn't own a gun. Neither does a mentally unstable person. They simply don't have the money or connections to obtain one. Sure, organized crime still has access to guns, but they tend to primarily use them to take out other criminals. Gun-related violence against innocents is extremely low.
Around here, most burglars tend to flee when they notice activity in the house they're breaking into. Because without a gun, chances of winning a direct conflict are very uncertain. If the houseowner(s) happen to be stronger / more agile / trained in martial arts, the burglar may be subdued even if they have a weapon, such as a knife. Any weapon that requires close range (knife, bat, etc...) is risky to use for the attacker, since it becomes much easier to either disarm the attacker or simply avoid him. A gun has none of these problems: Whoever shoots first tends to win (indoors where distances are small enough for accuracy and skill not to play a major role).
A mentally unstable person out to go on a killing spree with a knife is much easier stopped or avoided. A knife-attack can still be very deadly, not disputing that, but the fact that you have to get up-close-and-personal with your targets greatly improves the odds for the defenders.
|
On December 17 2012 19:55 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote + Do you honestly think there is going to be a tyranic goverment that you need to fight anytime soon? Ironic coming from someone living in Europe no? I hear Germany implementing tough austerity measures on Greece, Spain & Italy is real popular over there right now, hoho!
Ahm....
WTF?
So... Your train of tought is the following:
Germany is implementing tough austerity measures on Greece, Spain and Italy (which Germany itself is not doing because it can't, you must be thinking of the "EU" in which germany is very important but nothing more).
Therefore it would be good for Greece, Spain and Italy to have citizens with the right to own arms? WTF?
I'm totally lost on what exactly you want to say or how it is relevant to this at all but i feel save to say that it's uttterly stupid.
|
On December 17 2012 20:10 NeWeNiyaLord wrote:
Basically, If there are more homeowners owning guns for defense. Doesn't the criminals just arm themselves even more to rob you?
I'm no expert on gun politics but it seems like countries where guns are illegal / Very hard to obtain there's less crime?
At least from a Norwegians perspective.
Oh, but you're forgetting: Freedom!
I've seriously never seen the amount of stupid nonsensical reasons to any topic on TL then what people are providing here. How does a gun provide you "freedom"? How do you measure the amount of "liberty" provided by items? Especially items designet to kill?
I wonder how long I'd last if I invaded an sc2 thread and started arguing that hacking provides "freedom", and then started quoting 250 year old politicians who really doesn't have anything to do with the subject at all.
|
Lets compare the gun argument to the arms race of the Cold War. Creating thousands of nuclear warheads for protection certainly made us all safer right? right? Yet today we deny nuclear capability to as many people as possible to increase global safety, hmmm....
|
On December 17 2012 20:49 EpidemicSC wrote:
Lets compare the gun argument to the arms race of the Cold War. Creating thousands of nuclear warheads for protection certainly made us all safer right? right? Yet today we deny nuclear capability to as many people as possible to increase global safety, hmmm....
Nukes don't kill people, people kill people !
|
|
|
On December 17 2012 17:24 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 16:52 Excludos wrote:On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Yes, I'm sure Benjamin Franklin think that schools all around the country needs to have constant mass murders so you can define the word "liberty" while looking smug on an internet forum. I didn't want to touch on this earlier, because you Americans seems a bit touchy on the subject. But what in the world makes you think that a gun has anything to do with freedom? How are you more "free" by owning one? Do you honestly think there is going to be a tyranic goverment that you need to fight anytime soon? Do you think America is going to be invaded by Norway tomorrow? If the answer is no, then your "freedom" is an illusion. Ben Franklin lived in a time when Indian conflicts could result in the massacre of entire villages and homesteads.
Ben Franklin lived in a time when Indians every day had to fear their entire villages or homesteads get murdered. Just a thought. It is the same shit. Walking through the country, killing everything and then wondering why "we are not safe", so "we need guns." Bullshit. But the US wont learn, they just wont. Everything is based on guns and military, the government did a good work, so good the population believes this freedom shit. It´s a shame.
|
iPlaY.NettleS Australia :
In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves were exterminated.
Daily Mail Article goes on :
“Well, blacks weren't allowed to own guns in the south, that's a historical fact as well, it would seem that the argument would apply there as well."
Guns are higly priced low tech articels that can be sold to stupid people who will feel "safe".
from Walmart.com
We found 344 results for " shotgun " in All Departments
|
On December 17 2012 17:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion. I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174 Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests? Just because something comes from the government doesn't mean it's skewed; NCBI is closer to the Library of Congress than it is to some sort of bizarre propaganda wing. And I'm not sure why you expect him to get you access to the full article given the proprietary nature of journals these days. Logging into academic journals is par for the course...do you understand what a public abstract is? Edit: And this is assuming of course that the government has some historic "anti-gun" agenda, which is frankly even more bizarre. The national government isn't run by Michael Moore and has been split 40-60 towards gun rights for a decade with no real sign of shifting. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much. Of course, as Franklin implicitly recognized it's much better to get both liberty and safety by becoming an ambassador.
Its a statistic. Of course its skewed. Statistics have to be skewed in some way, its very important that you find out how they were calculated.
I'm quite aware obviously of what an abstract is. However you also must realize that this does not make for a decent source. Just because someone out there wrote a bunch of pages without explaining themselves very well or explaining how their numbers were arrived at doesn't make things any better. I of course understand all of this but people who don't realize that there is always bias no matter what side are the most dangerous types because they're so head-strong about being wrong (quite literally) and that simply amuses me.
|
If we make guns illegal there's no way anyone will be able to get ahold of them, isn't that right cocaine? Just because something this illegal doesn't mean it's instantly gone.
|
On December 18 2012 00:13 Butterednuts wrote:
If we make guns illegal there's no way anyone will be able to get ahold of them, isn't that right cocaine? Just because something this illegal doesn't mean it's instantly gone.
Shoot... cocaine? I'd just put marijuana. That shit's been "illegal" for 100 years and nobody in the world seems to have any trouble getting as much as they want pretty much whenever they want.
|
Thats probably because it just "grows".
I don't have seen a "gun tree" yet but i could be mistaken...
|
People comparing drugs to guns again.... yawn
We are going around in circles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
