|
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 January 10 2013 03:11 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 02:58 JingleHell wrote:On January 10 2013 02:53 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 02:24 JingleHell wrote:On January 10 2013 02:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 10 2013 01:45 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 00:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 23:46 Velr wrote:On January 09 2013 21:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:13 Velr wrote:
"Fun" fact:
After the recent shooting in the US gun sales went up.
After the recent shooting in Switzerland, more people than before gave up their gun ownership.
It's just a diffrent mentality you cowboys got over there ^^. Arguing about it is pointless because for some reason, guns in the US seem to be a very emotional thing, seemingly to the extend of nearly being something religious.
You can't argue with faith, be it faith in god or faith in guns... Its hard to argue with an irrational fear of firearms derived from not growing up around and shooting them. I live in rural america. We go shooting regularly, regardless of political beliefs. Most people own guns, again, regardless of their political beliefs. I shot guns before I was 10. When some city slicker tells me my culture is unacceptable it sounds snobbish, arrogant, and self-important. The last murder in my town was years ago, and wasn't even done with a gun. We're not worried about it. Your problem is... We also grow up "around" guns, ffs ~60-70% of the male population is undergoing military training with an assault rifle... So there is hardly some "irrational fear" of guns, it's just that most non-hunters/sport-shooters don't see a (smart) use for them in our day to day lives and therefore many of us rather remove the possible danger out of our lives instead of having it in case some weird scenario happens. I see were you coming from and I actually agree that guns aren't the problem, BUT guns are easily capable of making existing problems unload in a terrible way and on top of that can and do create very sad accidents. I was addressing people who don't. There is definitely a lot of irrational fear of guns. Talking to rich city folk, they get scared or look at you funny if they realize you own a gun. Some are even sketched out about knives, and will think you're crazy if you carry one in your pocket. Its highly irrational, and qualifies as a phobia imo. Being one of those city folks who will look funnily at people if they tell me they carry a gun or any knife bigger than a victorinox around with them regularly is not due to some irrational fear. It is due to the implications that you for some reason feel it is necessary for you to walk around with these "tools" on an average day in life, because that is what is irrational here. What situation in your daily life have YOU encountered where a gun was needed to resolve the issue? I will admit to being fairly young (mid-twenties), but I have yet to even experience a drunken fight (despite getting extremely cocky when I get drunk and getting drunk in the shadier parts of town), a mugging or anything in which a gun would be remotely useful. That's good, I'm glad you've never been into trouble. But you're arguing that carrying a weapon to prevent something that's a rare occurrence is irrational. The purpose of gun control is to prevent something that is a rare occurrence. So isn't it... irrational? A person carrying a gun can prevent themselves from being raped, mugged, assaulted etc. without even having to kill the person. They can simply pull it out and watch them run away. These crimes have a much higher rate of incidence than homicide does. How does it make sense to trade my freedom to carry a gun, when the return is so meager and far less than what I get if I keep it? To draw an analogy, using a condom to prevent incurable STD's (as opposed to the easily fixed variety) could be called irrational under his logic. Not that many people in America have incurable STD's, and they certainly aren't trying to spread them around, so wearing a condom is irrational and paranoid. I can't even begin to understand how people consider it crazy to carry a weapon for self defense against the unlikely circumstances. Unlikely and impossible are two different things. We rant about "abstinence only" birth control and sex ed, because it's stupid and irresponsible, but a large portion of the same political demographic then turns around and preaches "abstinence only" gun control. Are they directly comparable? No. Obviously. But enough parallels can be drawn that it starts to seem like pure extremism isn't the solution. I would much prefer it if you did not try and put words in my mouth. I have not argued for "absolute abstinence" at any point. If this is to be fruitful in any way, that shit needs to stop right now. Furthermore your analogy is horribly flawed - it fails to recognize any sort of intent for starters - leading you to draw conclusions on flawed premises. @ Smokeyhood: I am arguing that instead of choosing the extreme option which introduces an entirely new level of danger (lethality) into the picture of a mugging one should prefer the non-lethal options (tazers, mazes) which also have the added advantage over a gun carried merely for the fearfactor that these could be carried with the intent of actual use. I do not think that is an irrational stance, but then again, I care less about my vallet than I do about peoples lives (and let us not forget that a gun does in no way have 100% accuracy - there is always the risk of hitting an innocent bystander when you decide to take matters into your own hands). I once again think it is irrational to believe that you are improving the overall safety of the public by adding more guns to the picture, especially when there are non-lethal options out there which work equally well. Just the fact that you make a strong emotional connection with a group that was clearly not intended to include specific individuals suggests that maybe you do think that way. It's a fairly valid blanket statement, when I make it clear that I don't inherently mean everyone within a group, or any specific individual. The analogy DOES hold up, I discussed the potential for intent later. A condom can be used to reduce forensic evidence in a rape, which is malicious intent, if a fringe circumstance, along with the possibility of fatal accidents such as a latex allergy. Just like malicious intent and fatal accidents are a minority with firearms in America. You refer directly to me, make a statement about "people" and then you do not expect me to understand that as you have included me in that group? Please... Now you are just being silly. And no, the analogy still does not hold up. What was the gun designed for? Killing. What was the condom designed for? To protect against STDs. Furthermore there are designed latex-free condoms for this exact reason.
If you can't tell that a different paragraph is intended to suggest I'm moving in a different direction, then you're just looking for a fight, probably to cover for the fact that you can't actually argue against the analogy I presented.
The mere fact that a gun is intended to kill (it was designed to kill things for legal purposes) does not change the argument regarding paranoia. Furthermore, there are trigger locks and gun safes designed to prevent accidents with guns. If those are present and fail to present a lethal accident with a gun, your point about latex free condoms could stand. However, as a rule, the lethal accidents with guns are generally due to the humans involved, not the equipment.
|
Just wanted to throw this out there. I don't disagree with people being able to own and carry a handgun. But the United States needs to put into place, or create stricter regulations that make it harder for an individual to purchase a gun. AFAIK it is very easy for someone to get a gun, and takes very little time and certification for someone to get one. Because of this relaxed approach to gun ownership in the United States, it's neighbours such as Mexico and Canada suffer. Criminals rely on this system to supply them with their needed fire power. A lot of the guns circulating around here, are illegally smuggled from the United States. Here, in Toronto, around 70% of all the guns used in crimes, all can be traced to be originating from the United States. It's absolutely ridiculous, and pisses me off I have to be cautious of potentially getting shot while walking through the mall because of your damned gun laws.
|
On January 10 2013 03:16 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 03:11 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 02:58 JingleHell wrote:On January 10 2013 02:53 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 02:24 JingleHell wrote:On January 10 2013 02:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 10 2013 01:45 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 00:25 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 23:46 Velr wrote:On January 09 2013 21:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
[quote]
Its hard to argue with an irrational fear of firearms derived from not growing up around and shooting them. I live in rural america. We go shooting regularly, regardless of political beliefs. Most people own guns, again, regardless of their political beliefs. I shot guns before I was 10. When some city slicker tells me my culture is unacceptable it sounds snobbish, arrogant, and self-important. The last murder in my town was years ago, and wasn't even done with a gun. We're not worried about it. Your problem is... We also grow up "around" guns, ffs ~60-70% of the male population is undergoing military training with an assault rifle... So there is hardly some "irrational fear" of guns, it's just that most non-hunters/sport-shooters don't see a (smart) use for them in our day to day lives and therefore many of us rather remove the possible danger out of our lives instead of having it in case some weird scenario happens. I see were you coming from and I actually agree that guns aren't the problem, BUT guns are easily capable of making existing problems unload in a terrible way and on top of that can and do create very sad accidents. I was addressing people who don't. There is definitely a lot of irrational fear of guns. Talking to rich city folk, they get scared or look at you funny if they realize you own a gun. Some are even sketched out about knives, and will think you're crazy if you carry one in your pocket. Its highly irrational, and qualifies as a phobia imo. Being one of those city folks who will look funnily at people if they tell me they carry a gun or any knife bigger than a victorinox around with them regularly is not due to some irrational fear. It is due to the implications that you for some reason feel it is necessary for you to walk around with these "tools" on an average day in life, because that is what is irrational here. What situation in your daily life have YOU encountered where a gun was needed to resolve the issue? I will admit to being fairly young (mid-twenties), but I have yet to even experience a drunken fight (despite getting extremely cocky when I get drunk and getting drunk in the shadier parts of town), a mugging or anything in which a gun would be remotely useful. That's good, I'm glad you've never been into trouble. But you're arguing that carrying a weapon to prevent something that's a rare occurrence is irrational. The purpose of gun control is to prevent something that is a rare occurrence. So isn't it... irrational? A person carrying a gun can prevent themselves from being raped, mugged, assaulted etc. without even having to kill the person. They can simply pull it out and watch them run away. These crimes have a much higher rate of incidence than homicide does. How does it make sense to trade my freedom to carry a gun, when the return is so meager and far less than what I get if I keep it? To draw an analogy, using a condom to prevent incurable STD's (as opposed to the easily fixed variety) could be called irrational under his logic. Not that many people in America have incurable STD's, and they certainly aren't trying to spread them around, so wearing a condom is irrational and paranoid. I can't even begin to understand how people consider it crazy to carry a weapon for self defense against the unlikely circumstances. Unlikely and impossible are two different things. We rant about "abstinence only" birth control and sex ed, because it's stupid and irresponsible, but a large portion of the same political demographic then turns around and preaches "abstinence only" gun control. Are they directly comparable? No. Obviously. But enough parallels can be drawn that it starts to seem like pure extremism isn't the solution. I would much prefer it if you did not try and put words in my mouth. I have not argued for "absolute abstinence" at any point. If this is to be fruitful in any way, that shit needs to stop right now. Furthermore your analogy is horribly flawed - it fails to recognize any sort of intent for starters - leading you to draw conclusions on flawed premises. @ Smokeyhood: I am arguing that instead of choosing the extreme option which introduces an entirely new level of danger (lethality) into the picture of a mugging one should prefer the non-lethal options (tazers, mazes) which also have the added advantage over a gun carried merely for the fearfactor that these could be carried with the intent of actual use. I do not think that is an irrational stance, but then again, I care less about my vallet than I do about peoples lives (and let us not forget that a gun does in no way have 100% accuracy - there is always the risk of hitting an innocent bystander when you decide to take matters into your own hands). I once again think it is irrational to believe that you are improving the overall safety of the public by adding more guns to the picture, especially when there are non-lethal options out there which work equally well. Just the fact that you make a strong emotional connection with a group that was clearly not intended to include specific individuals suggests that maybe you do think that way. It's a fairly valid blanket statement, when I make it clear that I don't inherently mean everyone within a group, or any specific individual. The analogy DOES hold up, I discussed the potential for intent later. A condom can be used to reduce forensic evidence in a rape, which is malicious intent, if a fringe circumstance, along with the possibility of fatal accidents such as a latex allergy. Just like malicious intent and fatal accidents are a minority with firearms in America. You refer directly to me, make a statement about "people" and then you do not expect me to understand that as you have included me in that group? Please... Now you are just being silly. And no, the analogy still does not hold up. What was the gun designed for? Killing. What was the condom designed for? To protect against STDs. Furthermore there are designed latex-free condoms for this exact reason. If you can't tell that a different paragraph is intended to suggest I'm moving in a different direction, then you're just looking for a fight, probably to cover for the fact that you can't actually argue against the analogy I presented. The mere fact that a gun is intended to kill (it was designed to kill things for legal purposes) does not change the argument regarding paranoia. Furthermore, there are trigger locks and gun safes designed to prevent accidents with guns. If those are present and fail to present a lethal accident with a gun, your point about latex free condoms could stand. However, as a rule, the lethal accidents with guns are generally due to the humans involved, not the equipment.
You are still strawmanning. When you stop doing that perhaps we can actually have decent discussion, but until then this will be my last reply to you:
You have yet to provide any substantial argument that the primary intent of a handgun/pistol/revolver is to kill does not alter the argument regarding paranoia. Simply stating that it does not, does not make that statement true. People are not afraid of cars despite a much higher deathtoll than both condoms and guns, because the primary purpose of a car is not to kill but to transport goods and people.
And to the Canadian who said I had never been in a truly bad neighborhood:
When I lived in Copenhagen I worked in the socially most vulnerable population, more than once during the "gangwar" in Copenhagen I was redirected on my way to work because the police was securing scene of crime. I have experienced gangs crashing into the ER demanding we hand over a patient to them so they can get revenge for another gangmember.
I am currently living in San Francisco where I do voluntary work in the projects. I have dealt with more crackheads, prostitutes, dealers and pimps than I care to talk about, but I think it is safe to say that more than a fair number of these were armed and perfectly legally as well due to the 2. amendment.
I can understand the need for rifles and shotguns in rural areas for hunting and possibly protection against wildlife, but seriously, carrying a weapon around with you in a city on an average day? The most dangerous animal you are going to encounter is probably a chihuahua (okay, a raccoon) and should you be attacked by a such I assure you that a well aimed kick will save your life.
|
Feel free to explain to me what part of what I said, exactly, is a strawman. These days, accusing someone of such in an argument has reached the point of having no meaning. It happens regularly in place of a rebuttal, usually meaning a person HAS no rebuttal.
Just like you shouldn't be afraid of a dangerous, but caged, animal in a zoo, as long as you're not inside the cage, a responsibly handled, owned, and carried firearm isn't dangerous. Just as you'd be slightly irrational and paranoid to avoid visiting zoos because of occasional accidents, it's paranoid to assume that all guns are going to kill you when it's demonstrably a vast minority.
The intended use of a gun being "kill" does not mean that the gun can only be used for criminal ends. Just like the fact that a condom can deny forensic evidence of rape doesn't mean they're for criminal ends.
I've already explained my logic, and aside from saying you disagree with it on grounds I've addressed, you have yet to really respond to it, except for calling it a strawman. From this point, any reply that doesn't actually include a thought process in your attempt to refute or rebut my analogy, that still references it, will be ignored, as debating with someone who ignores the conventions of debate is slightly less productive than beating my head against the floor.
|
On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD
It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back.
|
On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back.
My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned...
|
On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned...
Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun.
I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry.
|
On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry.
A taser works just as well.
And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly.
|
On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly.
Agreed. The use of a lethal firearm should be the last possible resort. They should be used where NO other weapon will do. If an elderly woman had a gun and was under attack by some massive dude, he would probably take her gun off her before she could shoot it.
|
On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly.
Funny thing is, tasers are harder and more expensive to get. I'm not saying thats good, but its true. They also aren't as effective though. The barbs can be tangled in clothing, making them ineffective.
Guns aren't that hard to handle properly. The only thing that might be difficult for an elderly woman is weight, and they make handguns that are less than a pound. Anyone too weak to lift one of those is probably also bedridden.
On January 10 2013 04:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly. Agreed. The use of a lethal firearm should be the last possible resort. They should be used where NO other weapon will do. If an elderly woman had a gun and was under attack by some massive dude, he would probably take her gun off her before she could shoot it.
But shouldn't she have the chance? Giving her a gun gives her a chance. Sure, he may disarm her, but that's not nearly as guaranteed as her defeat if she does not have a gun is.
|
On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:
A taser works just as well.
Incorrect. A taser is leagues behind a pistol in self defense for numerous obvious reasons.
On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:
And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly.
Also incorrect. I've seen a plenty of women handle a pistol easily, from short to old to weak. Pistols come in many shapes and sizes, older ladies who practice shouldn't have any problem controlling a .38 on down.
|
On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly.
The ignorance of comments like these is just astounding.
Not everyone is in their mid-20s or somewhere else in the prime of life, capable of defending themselves from assault, if multiple people attack you they don't come at you one at a time like in the movies, and old ladies can and do handle guns properly. So do young ladies. They tell women to scream fire instead of help if they're being assaulted because people don't come to help if you scream for help. They'll come for a fire. Firearms are about the only way an elderly person or a woman can defend themselves against a serious criminal attack, the vast majority of which are committed by males in the prime of life. A taser does not work as well as a gun either. You have one shot with a taser in a close situation, multiple shots with a gun. One shot with a gun is more damaging than one with a taser.
Sure if you get off the right shot a taser will put someone down. If you mace someone most of the time they'll run simply because they've met successful resistance. But if you miss with a taser or mace or it doesn't work, you're done. A gun, you still have a chance.
Not everyone gets to live in the nice part of town where you don't have to worry about walking down the street and you don't have to worry about someone knocking on your door and bum-rushing you when you answer it or breaking the kitchen window at 2 am to sack the place.
|
What I don't understand is why people are chomping at the bit to capitulate freedoms left and right. Why do people think stronger government is always the answer?
|
I will name only one phenomena, which happens to be very specific to the U.S.- school shootings.
Such thing are rarely, if ever, seen in the rest of the world.
Nothing more to say.
|
On January 10 2013 04:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly. The ignorance of comments like these is just astounding. Not everyone is in their mid-20s or somewhere else in the prime of life, capable of defending themselves from assault, if multiple people attack you they don't come at you one at a time like in the movies, and old ladies can and do handle guns properly. So do young ladies. They tell women to scream fire instead of help if they're being assaulted because people don't come to help if you scream for help. They'll come for a fire. Firearms are about the only way an elderly person or a woman can defend themselves against a serious criminal attack, the vast majority of which are committed by males in the prime of life. A taser does not work as well as a gun either. You have one shot with a taser in a close situation, multiple shots with a gun. One shot with a gun is more damaging than one with a taser. Sure if you get off the right shot a taser will put someone down. If you mace someone most of the time they'll run simply because they've met successful resistance. But if you miss with a taser or mace or it doesn't work, you're done. A gun, you still have a chance. Not everyone gets to live in the nice part of town where you don't have to worry about walking down the street and you don't have to worry about someone knocking on your door and bum-rushing you when you answer it or breaking the kitchen window at 2 am to sack the place.
I can't point out how absurd and unreal your points are if you are this paranoid, and live your life in constant fear.
|
On January 10 2013 04:29 danl9rm wrote:
What I don't understand is why people are chomping at the bit to capitulate freedoms left and right. Why do people think stronger government is always the answer?
When people grow accustomed to things they take them for granted. It's just human nature. Your average 20 something year old has no idea what it is like to live in an oppressive system, nor do they understand that the freedom they have grown accustomed to is the exception throughout history rather than the norm. So how could they fear it?
|
United States24670 Posts
On January 10 2013 04:33 shadowy wrote:
I will name only one phenomena, which happens to be very specific to the U.S.- school shootings.
Such thing are rarely, if ever, seen in the rest of the world.
Nothing more to say.
This doesn't actually answer the question though... it's just a cursorily related observation you've made. Why post if that's all you want to contribute?
It also helps to have some type of a quantitative figure to back up your observation.
On January 10 2013 04:43 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly. The ignorance of comments like these is just astounding. Not everyone is in their mid-20s or somewhere else in the prime of life, capable of defending themselves from assault, if multiple people attack you they don't come at you one at a time like in the movies, and old ladies can and do handle guns properly. So do young ladies. They tell women to scream fire instead of help if they're being assaulted because people don't come to help if you scream for help. They'll come for a fire. Firearms are about the only way an elderly person or a woman can defend themselves against a serious criminal attack, the vast majority of which are committed by males in the prime of life. A taser does not work as well as a gun either. You have one shot with a taser in a close situation, multiple shots with a gun. One shot with a gun is more damaging than one with a taser. Sure if you get off the right shot a taser will put someone down. If you mace someone most of the time they'll run simply because they've met successful resistance. But if you miss with a taser or mace or it doesn't work, you're done. A gun, you still have a chance. Not everyone gets to live in the nice part of town where you don't have to worry about walking down the street and you don't have to worry about someone knocking on your door and bum-rushing you when you answer it or breaking the kitchen window at 2 am to sack the place. I can't point out how absurd and unreal your points are if you are this paranoid, and live your life in constant fear.
His post wasn't that unreasonable... sure you might disagree with it which is fine, but don't refuse to counter it on the grounds that it's way too ridiculous to even address the points. In other words, if you truly feel the way you said, there was no point in you posting (otherwise, may as well actually make your points).
|
On January 10 2013 03:50 JingleHell wrote:
Feel free to explain to me what part of what I said, exactly, is a strawman. These days, accusing someone of such in an argument has reached the point of having no meaning. It happens regularly in place of a rebuttal, usually meaning a person HAS no rebuttal.
Just like you shouldn't be afraid of a dangerous, but caged, animal in a zoo, as long as you're not inside the cage, a responsibly handled, owned, and carried firearm isn't dangerous. Just as you'd be slightly irrational and paranoid to avoid visiting zoos because of occasional accidents, it's paranoid to assume that all guns are going to kill you when it's demonstrably a vast minority.
The intended use of a gun being "kill" does not mean that the gun can only be used for criminal ends. Just like the fact that a condom can deny forensic evidence of rape doesn't mean they're for criminal ends.
I've already explained my logic, and aside from saying you disagree with it on grounds I've addressed, you have yet to really respond to it, except for calling it a strawman. From this point, any reply that doesn't actually include a thought process in your attempt to refute or rebut my analogy, that still references it, will be ignored, as debating with someone who ignores the conventions of debate is slightly less productive than beating my head against the floor.
Every time you start your response with "your emotional response tells me" or "Doing this usually means that" instead of actually responding to the post is strawmanning - and you did it again here, both in the start and the end of your post (you are the one so far who has ignored the conventions of debate). Be that as it may:
I went through your previous responses and all I could find about you addressing the flaws in your analogy besides blanket statements like was:
"Well, some people ARE violently allergic to latex, and internal contact with something you're allergic to can be pretty bad. So, does that mean we should ban latex condoms, because they could hurt someone, and you only need to carry one if you're paranoid?
http://www.newyorknymedicalmalpracticeblog.com/2012/07/47-million-jury-verdict-after-latex-allergy-death.shtml"
1) Condoms are not only used to protect against STDs but also against unwanted pregnancies - this has nothing to do with paranoia and this alone flaws your analogy. A gun only has the paranoia aspect of the STDs attached to it following your analogy.
2) A condom only lowers the risk of attracting STDs, it does not make them more resistant or in other ways more dangerous. Lenient gun laws just so happen to also make it easier for everyone to get guns, including those we really do not wish to have guns.
3) Your statement about forensic evidence being limited with the use of condoms is flawed for several reasons. The use of condoms, whilst denying sperm samples to be taken, opens the door for a lot of other forensic tests, just to mention one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110119132517.htm
4) People generally know if they are allergic to latex and since the use of condoms is agreed upon by both parts in everyday life, there is here the possibility to avoid any risk. Lenient gun laws and concealed carry means that it is not possible to walk around without the possibility of a criminal with a gun.
5) Your analogy completely ignores the fact that there are alternatives to guns with the same capacity for protection, but none of the lethality. There are no other preventive methods that works as well as the condom, outside of abstinence, which we have already established we both find ridiculous.
6) I can use a condom without endangering any lives in everyday life, if you pull a gun on another person you are already endangering that persons life (I believe one of the first thing you are being taught in shooting classes is to never point at something you do not want to kill). Furthermore, no one gets to be judge, jury and executioner - a gun gives you that option, a condom does not.
To sum up:
I do not believe there is a use for handguns in everyday life when living in a city. I think current gun laws are too lenient. I do not believe total abolishment of guns are feasible nor sensible (despite your previous attempts at making it seem otherwise) - both hunting and sports are good arguments. I do not understand why anyone would feel the need for a concealed carry. I do not believe that adding more guns to the equation will improve the safety of the population. Being for more gun control is neither irrational, nor is it paranoid.
|
On January 10 2013 04:33 shadowy wrote:
I will name only one phenomena, which happens to be very specific to the U.S.- school shootings.
Such thing are rarely, if ever, seen in the rest of the world.
Nothing more to say.
They're pretty rare in the US too.
|
On January 10 2013 02:01 dUTtrOACh wrote:
Walk around in the wrong hood in the U.S. and you may find yourself in a life or death situation pretty fast. Denmark is just... different from the U.S. It's hard for someone with no concept of a truly shitty neighbourhood where practically everyone is armed or cracked out to fathom the type of situations that can arise in one. Canada has less of a "self-defense" mentality surrounding guns, simply because we have less crime, but I'll tell you, with the amount of wildlife and the popularity of outdoor activities here, I couldn't imagine not being able to legally and responsibly carry around a rifle or a shotgun if I really wanted to enjoy the great white North. The very concept sounds oppressive and totalitarian to me.
Please explain this life or death situation because in such case I don't see how carrying a gun could make things look better especially from a government standpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
