|
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 February 23 2012 08:42 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:
One word: Witness.
Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive. Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that? Sometimes people kill people because if they don't, then that person can identify / testify against them. It makes it easier to get away with whatever they've done. It makes no sense in the real world that it's better to be unarmed than armed.
If someone wants to kill someone because they're a witness, they could kill that person on the spot — not give the person a chance to pull out a gun.
If you pull a gun out on someone that has a gun aimed at you, you are dead. Guns are not particularly good at protecting against guns for that reason. Someone hijacks you when you alone, a few people invade a house, etc. A gun will oftentimes just make a person more likely to be killed since the offender has the advantage. Even if they don't get an advantage, someone will still very likely end up dead, and could even go to prison for it. The fact that he may have been a criminal or may have intended to commit a crime does not in itself make it legal to kill them. It makes more sense to be using less-lethal weapons.
|
On February 24 2012 17:04 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 08:42 Kaitlin wrote:On February 23 2012 07:29 Djzapz wrote:On February 23 2012 06:37 Kaitlin wrote:
One word: Witness.
Ever heard of it ? I don't know what world you live in, but you're quite naive. Not sure I understand what you're saying. "Witness" is a word indeed, but beyond that? Sometimes people kill people because if they don't, then that person can identify / testify against them. It makes it easier to get away with whatever they've done. It makes no sense in the real world that it's better to be unarmed than armed. If someone wants to kill someone because they're a witness, they could kill that person on the spot — not give the person a chance to pull out a gun. If you pull a gun out on someone that has a gun aimed at you, you are dead. Guns are not particularly good at protecting against guns for that reason. Someone hijacks you when you alone, a few people invade a house, etc. A gun will oftentimes just make a person more likely to be killed since the offender has the advantage. Even if they don't get an advantage, someone will still very likely end up dead, and could even go to prison for it. The fact that he may have been a criminal or may have intended to commit a crime does not in itself make it legal to kill them. It makes more sense to be using less-lethal weapons.
Stop. Just stop. Again, people defend themselves against people with guns every single day. Your assumption that them having a gun on you means you automatically cannot get your gun is completely wrong. You make the mistake of hypothesizing without any knowledge of the subject. How long does it take a person to present a firearm? How long does it take to react to movement? How long does it take you to push a weapon offline? In the course of interaction, the other person is never distracted? Never in arms reach?
Offender has the advantage? If you are at home, you have complete advantage. They have to get through your door, are unfamiliar with the layout, and do not know the angles. If they get you in the street, you have the element of surprise. They aren't going to just immediately shoot you otherwise you would already be dead. 0-60 speed? How long does it take to push a gun out of the way? Less time then it takes to observe hostile action, pull trigger, mechanical delay, bullet exit barrel. Doable even if they are completely focused on you. Your odds skyrocket when, as in most robberies, they divert their attention for a second or two to something else.
You're right in saying that their intent, or commission of a crime does not inherently make it legal to kill them. Being in fear for your life does. If he has a gun, sure whatever fine, debatable in court. If he points it at me at any time, I am protected by law. Less lethal weapons do not have a good track record.
Again, it's hard to kill somebody with a handgun. Giving being within arms reach, it is far easier to with a knife. On the other hand to get an immediate stop or cessation of hostile action, a gun will outperform a knife or any other less lethal weapon. Guns are not magic, people do not explode when hit. They comply with the rules of physics and anatomy and shoot little pieces of metal that can even bounce off glass.
|
People are not rational. They don't only use weapons to defend themselves.
If someone gets really emotional because he is drunk or a sad teenager, or because someone's been left by their boyfriend, I don't want them to have guns.
And I don't think guns are good for defense. If someone wants to rob me, the sensible thing to do is to GTFO and call the police, not trying to defend myself with a pistol. In the same way that fire extinguishers can be dangerous because people put themselves at risk thinking they can extinct any blaze.
If every normal citizen has guns, they are a bigger threat to criminals, therefore criminals probably have more incentive to kill them.
And guns obviously are no tool for the people to defend themselves from a potentially "evil" government, because modern army > pistols.
|
As an Englishman, I have literally never seen a gun in my life. I couldn't live in a country where people were legally allowed to carry guns. Also to add, USA homicide rate is 5x higher than the UK, 7x higher than Japan and almost 10x higher than Austria.
Obviously it's not simply a case of taking everyone guns away and it's not just being allowed to carry guns that causes the amount of homicides to be so high in America. But it would be much lower with gun control like that of these countries.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +Fundamentally, you are approaching the problem from an entirely different direction. You are arguing entirely based on an obsession with safety in which citizens should bend over to the criminal element. In my opinion, that's your prerogative, but there should be other options. I'm arguing that people can be adults about gun ownership, don't have to be intimidated, and may choose to elevate the risks associated with encountering the criminal element at their own discretion. On the contrary, you're the one with the obsession with safety. My position presumes a relatively safe society, yours presumes an unsafe one that requires extreme preventative measures, with little regard for the cost in terms of the big picture. You're only interested in personal safety, you don't appear to be particularly interested in the outcome in terms of the cost to society, and in fact you've even said you're fine with a war of attrition against the criminal element. I can't even begin to describe how costly this would be to society, were it even feasible (it's not).
That's a laughable assertion. You make self-serving assumptions to bolster your argument. It's safe when your argument needs it, e.g. most of the time, and make the fallacious argument that because most of the time guns aren't necessary, we should always restrict it. Then it's unsafe to the extreme when you need it to be for gun owners who dare to fight back and are not intimidated. Selective analysis to the extreme.
"Cost to society" is another way of saying that you prefer the most "safe" outcome in the event of criminal activity? The big picture is not injury or death in one or two incidents. The big picture is respect for the law and overall lawful behavior. If society will operate as you wish and make citizens non-entities in the struggle against criminal activity, then the citizenry cannot express their (violent) opposition to these crimes. "Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many." The secondary concern is empowerment of the citizenry such that they aren't intimidated, they feel empowered, and they are willing to defend each other against violent criminals. The mental, cultural, and social mindset is the big picture.
And of course, you'd bring up a scenario involving organized crime like Hell's Angels. Organized crime requires an organized counter. The kind of weapons involved in organized crime is hardly important. It is a non-issue.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 19:25 Ashworth wrote:
As an Englishmen, I have literally never seen a gun in my life. I couldn't live in a country where people were legally allowed to carry guns.
A gun carrying society wouldn't have you either.
Individuals from societies that don't have experience with guns often have little respect for the responsibilities that comes with being armed. People with fear of guns are unsteady and unpredictable handlers. I'd wouldn't want to be around you when you're armed. Then if you got all worked up over an item that people know how to use responsibility, people would look at you funny as if you were crazy.
If you'd overcome your fears and get some gun use training, then it'd be different.
|
On February 24 2012 19:50 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 19:25 Ashworth wrote:
As an Englishmen, I have literally never seen a gun in my life. I couldn't live in a country where people were legally allowed to carry guns. A gun carrying society wouldn't have you either. Individuals from societies that don't have experience with guns often have little respect for the responsibilities that comes with being armed. People with fear of guns are unsteady and unpredictable handlers. I'd wouldn't want to be around you when you're armed. Then if you got all worked up over an item that people know how to use responsibility, people would look at you funny as if you were crazy. If you'd overcome your fears and get some gun use training, then it'd be different.
I don't understand what your point is...
I do not need a gun, it wouldn't benefit me in anyway. Similarly I do not want people around me carrying a gun because it would not benefit me in any way. Say "People with fear of guns are unsteady and unpredictable handlers." as an argument for guns it's absolutely stupid. Do you believe there aren't people like this in America where gun crime is so rampant?
Also it's is almost impossible to get your hand on a gun in almsot all parts of England.
TLDR Guns are bad, I don't care to learn how to carry one.
|
On February 20 2012 04:05 Trollk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:53 Yongwang wrote:
What if someone breaks into his house? What if he's walking down the street and a gang banger or mugger starts threatening him? If someone breaks into his house, a dog has more effect in preventing burglary and is equally as effective as a gun in defending my home. If you are walking down the street and you are being threated by a mugger, you have a pretty high chance that the mugger has a gun too. If he does, then you would have to be a trained gunuser, who practises regularly in shooting and pulling a gun in order to have a respectable chance of winning the standoff against that mugger. It would be convenient just to hand over your wallet. It might seem 'cowardly' or 'chickenish' but dead heros don't live.
Dead Nord heros live on in song! *slams mead mug down on table*
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 20:01 Ashworth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 19:50 TanGeng wrote:On February 24 2012 19:25 Ashworth wrote:
As an Englishmen, I have literally never seen a gun in my life. I couldn't live in a country where people were legally allowed to carry guns. A gun carrying society wouldn't have you either. Individuals from societies that don't have experience with guns often have little respect for the responsibilities that comes with being armed. People with fear of guns are unsteady and unpredictable handlers. I'd wouldn't want to be around you when you're armed. Then if you got all worked up over an item that people know how to use responsibility, people would look at you funny as if you were crazy. If you'd overcome your fears and get some gun use training, then it'd be different. I don't understand what your point is... I do not need a gun, it wouldn't benefit me in anyway. Similarly I do not want people around me carrying a gun because it would not benefit me in any way. Say "People with fear of guns are unsteady and unpredictable handlers." as an argument for guns it's absolutely stupid. Do you believe there aren't people like this in America where gun crime is so rampant? Also it's is almost impossible to get your hand on a gun in almsot all parts of England. TLDR Guns are bad, I don't care to learn how to carry one.
You fear guns. I get it.
|
What is a safe gun user? Someone who knows how to shoot someone? Guns kill people. Are all you gun wielding americans seriously ready to kill? No matter if its a thief or a burglar its still a human life you take away. Perhaps this person has a family.
Are you ready to start a gun fight? Isn't it more likely for you to die yourself if you draw your gun? Guns should be hard to access, and handguns and automatic weapons should not be something everyone can obtain. That my opinion.
|
On February 24 2012 20:52 TanGeng wrote:
You fear guns. I get it.
Well done Sherlock, I didn't even know I didn't make this clear.
Do you think you're cool and edgy because you like guns?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 21:14 Ashworth wrote:Well done Sherlock, I didn't even know I didn't make this clear. Do you think you're cool and edgy because you like guns?
You might also understand disdain that gun owners have for your fear.
It's not cool to impose your fears on everyone else.
On February 24 2012 20:58 kyllinghest wrote:
What is a safe gun user? Someone who knows how to shoot someone? Guns kill people. Are all you gun wielding americans seriously ready to kill? No matter if its a thief or a burglar its still a human life you take away. Perhaps this person has a family.
In self-defense, it's shoot to kill in that you're shoot without regard for their life. You're shooting to eliminate your target as a threat. If that means death, so be it. That your target has a family doesn't matter.
On February 24 2012 20:58 kyllinghest wrote:
Are you ready to start a gun fight? Isn't it more likely for you to die yourself if you draw your gun? Guns should be hard to access, and handguns and automatic weapons should not be something everyone can obtain. That my opinion.
Seriously, use good judgement. Nothing is substitute for good judgement. People get killed all the time without the aid of firearms because of bad judgement. If there is a lapse in judgement, then be prepare to suffer and make amends for the consequences.
And your opinion matters to the rest of us because...? You're perfectly free not to own a gun on your own.
|
On February 24 2012 21:21 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 20:58 kyllinghest wrote:
What is a safe gun user? Someone who knows how to shoot someone? Guns kill people. Are all you gun wielding americans seriously ready to kill? No matter if its a thief or a burglar its still a human life you take away. Perhaps this person has a family.
In self-defense, it's shoot to kill in that you're shoot without regard for their life. You're shooting to eliminate your target as a threat. If that means death, so be it. That your target has a family doesn't matter.
Sorry but I'm not ready to trade a human life for my TV. Even if it's a miserable thief. Whatever you may think, robbery is more of a socio-economic despair than a a will to harm.
Gun vs Gun is more risky for your life than gun vs no gun.
The good guy doesn't always shoot the bad guy first.
Personally I don't fear guns. I fear idiots with guns. And since there are many idiots.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 21:47 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 21:21 TanGeng wrote:On February 24 2012 20:58 kyllinghest wrote:
What is a safe gun user? Someone who knows how to shoot someone? Guns kill people. Are all you gun wielding americans seriously ready to kill? No matter if its a thief or a burglar its still a human life you take away. Perhaps this person has a family.
In self-defense, it's shoot to kill in that you're shoot without regard for their life. You're shooting to eliminate your target as a threat. If that means death, so be it. That your target has a family doesn't matter. Sorry but I'm not ready to trade a human life for my TV. Even if it's a miserable thief. Whatever you may think, robbery is more of a socio-economic despair than a a will to harm. Gun vs Gun is more risky for your life than gun vs no gun. The good guy doesn't always shoot the bad guy first.
And YOU STILL CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE!!! Nothing is stopping you.
|
On February 24 2012 21:21 TanGeng wrote:
And your opinion matters to the rest of us because...? You're perfectly free not to own a gun on your own.
Why are you on a discussion forum if other peoples opinion doesn't matter to you? Why should we listen to you?
|
On February 24 2012 21:21 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 20:58 kyllinghest wrote:
Are you ready to start a gun fight? Isn't it more likely for you to die yourself if you draw your gun? Guns should be hard to access, and handguns and automatic weapons should not be something everyone can obtain. That my opinion. And your opinion matters to the rest of us because...? You're perfectly free not to own a gun on your own.
Actually it matters. Because if his neighbors had guns it would impact his life as well. He has the right to not own gun, but also to militate for a strict gun control.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 21:52 kyllinghest wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 21:21 TanGeng wrote:
And your opinion matters to the rest of us because...? You're perfectly free not to own a gun on your own. Why are you on a discussion forum if other peoples opinion doesn't matter to you? Why should we listen to you?
Personal choice? I don't know. I'm not the one advocating obnoxiously imposing my choices on the rest of you. You are perfectly able to be a gun-illiterate, irrationally fearing, coward, or a safety maximizing realist, or any other characterization of the choices that you will make concerning guns.
I don't care what you do. If you don't care what I do as long as I'm not harming you, I'm perfectly happy. That means no gun control.
|
On February 24 2012 19:27 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote:Fundamentally, you are approaching the problem from an entirely different direction. You are arguing entirely based on an obsession with safety in which citizens should bend over to the criminal element. In my opinion, that's your prerogative, but there should be other options. I'm arguing that people can be adults about gun ownership, don't have to be intimidated, and may choose to elevate the risks associated with encountering the criminal element at their own discretion. On the contrary, you're the one with the obsession with safety. My position presumes a relatively safe society, yours presumes an unsafe one that requires extreme preventative measures, with little regard for the cost in terms of the big picture. You're only interested in personal safety, you don't appear to be particularly interested in the outcome in terms of the cost to society, and in fact you've even said you're fine with a war of attrition against the criminal element. I can't even begin to describe how costly this would be to society, were it even feasible (it's not). That's a laughable assertion. You make self-serving assumptions to bolster your argument. It's safe when your argument needs it, e.g. most of the time, and make the fallacious argument that because most of the time guns aren't necessary, we should always restrict it. Then it's unsafe to the extreme when you need it to be for gun owners who dare to fight back and are not intimidated. Selective analysis to the extreme.
Sorry but this makes a grand total of zero sense (and no cents). If you're saying I'm presuming a safe society to put forward the argument that guns are unnecessary, while simultaneously providing an example that makes society sound unsafe then you're wrong about that being a contradiction for three reasons.
1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context.
2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat.
3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
On February 24 2012 19:27 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 05:47 sevencck wrote:Fundamentally, you are approaching the problem from an entirely different direction. You are arguing entirely based on an obsession with safety in which citizens should bend over to the criminal element. In my opinion, that's your prerogative, but there should be other options. I'm arguing that people can be adults about gun ownership, don't have to be intimidated, and may choose to elevate the risks associated with encountering the criminal element at their own discretion. On the contrary, you're the one with the obsession with safety. My position presumes a relatively safe society, yours presumes an unsafe one that requires extreme preventative measures, with little regard for the cost in terms of the big picture. You're only interested in personal safety, you don't appear to be particularly interested in the outcome in terms of the cost to society, and in fact you've even said you're fine with a war of attrition against the criminal element. I can't even begin to describe how costly this would be to society, were it even feasible (it's not). And of course, you'd bring up a scenario involving organized crime like Hell's Angels. Organized crime requires an organized counter. The kind of weapons involved in organized crime is hardly important. It is a non-issue.
Yes, an organized counter. A bunch of people with guns who think they can "beat crime through attrition" isn't an organized counter. I'm in favor of solutions that speak to the big picture, not overly idealistic and narrow-minded actions that are based mostly on fear.
On February 24 2012 22:06 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 21:52 kyllinghest wrote:On February 24 2012 21:21 TanGeng wrote:
And your opinion matters to the rest of us because...? You're perfectly free not to own a gun on your own. Why are you on a discussion forum if other peoples opinion doesn't matter to you? Why should we listen to you? I don't care what you do. If you don't care what I do as long as I'm not harming you, I'm perfectly happy. That means no gun control.
Our position is that you are harming us by owning guns. You are undermining social safety and stability through mass gun ownership. You are making the job of the police more difficult and dangerous. You are creating confrontations with deadly weapons where someone has to shoot first potentially in a crowded public setting. We can simply turn your argument on its head and point out that we don't care what you do as long as you're not harming us, and that means gun control.
The difference, of course, is that you haven't provided a satisfactory rationalization for why guns are a necessity beyond it being your right as a citizen to own one. The reason that isn't satisfactory is that citizens can't own landmines, or rocket propelled grenades, or machine guns. In other words, there is already a precedent for outlawing ownership of dangerous weapons that compromise public safety. Can you give me a logical reason why a handgun is fundamentally different from these items?
|
So - because you are terrified that you will accidentally shoot yourself with a gun, I should disarm myself and render myself completely at the whim of any violent thug (w/ or w/o a badge) who decides to attack me? Sure maybe if you spend your whole life sitting at home in a basement behind a locked door no one will ever use violence against you but in the real world not everyone is as impotent as we are over the internet. There are people who will aggress against you. And I don't care if you feel so pacific that you won't even defend yourself, that's your business, but why do you have to make it a crime for me to defend myself and my family?
|
Its none of your fucking business if I have a firearm or if I don't. As long as I don't use it to infringe upon someone elses property, life, or rights, you can fuck right off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
