|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 12 2013 06:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag. Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in. Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
Where can I read up on these "statistics"?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Ok so apparently for most of you a simple non-zero possibility of needing an object is grounds for carrying. I think yall are irrational and I think that's more likely to cause problems than solve them. But I'm clearly not in the same company so I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.
Again, I think that there are situations that warrant being armed. Like being in a dangerous neighborhood on a regular basis (not a gated community). But that is significantly higher than the simple non-zero possibility yall seem to think qualifies as rational.
I don't have a gun and doubt that I would buy one just because I think they are dangerous however I still see owning one and keeping it on you as a good safety measure provided you are able to keep your head straight.
|
On July 12 2013 06:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag. Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in. Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
My decision as to whether I will arm myself when I go out in public (subject to CC laws) and whether I choose to maintain weapons at home to defend against home invasion are not based on statistics of how often home invasions occur vs. the likelihood of accidents that occur across the population. My decision is made based on whether I want to protect myself against home invasion and the risk I assume in my personal circumstances, such as do I have children, do I have a safe place to keep the weapon, etc. I don't care about probabilities across the population.
|
Safety and other precautions? Doesn't fuckin matter, it's legal to own and carry guns. Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached to carrying guns
|
On July 12 2013 06:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag. Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in. Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
If you are refering to the statistics that gun control folks use to say that defending your house with a fire arm is more likely to cause injury, those have been debunked a long time ago. One of the methods they used allowed for any injury to count and also did not count any event when the gun was not fired.
Finally, I know I am not trained, but I also know there have been a series of break in for the last 2 years in my area. There is no way to get out of the house from our bedroom without injury. I would rather have the event be in my control than just hope they go away.
|
On July 12 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:06 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm not sure a grenade could be considered a self-defense weapon. Well neither are nukes but that didn't stop the US and Russia. It was supposed to be an outlier to showcase a ridiculous image in order for it to be compared to other objects that seem "normal" Of course most people (today) would find a hand grenade as not an okay object for self defense. But somewhere between having a cellphone and having a hand grenade is where the argument of self defense weapons want to be.
Yeah, that's a totally intelligent post. /sarcasm
I said self-defense. Nukes are a "deterrent".
|
On July 12 2013 06:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:18 SKC wrote:
[quote]
How exactly do you think violence would still happen had Martin not attacked him? Zimmerman would aproach him, arrogantly, in your own words, maybe even hold him until the police arrives, and nothing would happen. He could be accused of racism or being a vigilante, but I don't believe there is evidence that Zimmermann would actually attack him. Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious." And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag. Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in. Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6.
Myth: You are more likely to injure or kill yourself with a firearm intended for self defense
Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault or murder if you own & defend yourself with a gun
Source: The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or Defense Against Crime, Don B. Kates, 1991 American Journal of Criminal Law
Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent bystander, only 2% of shootings by civilians kill an innocent person
Source: Shall Issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
This is seriously teetering on the edge of a gun control debate. Don't we have a thread for that?
|
On July 12 2013 06:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Safety and other precautions? Doesn't fuckin matter, it's legal to own and carry guns. Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached to carrying guns
That is a terrifying point of view.
Is it just the US law that you say is perfect?
|
On July 12 2013 06:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 06:06 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm not sure a grenade could be considered a self-defense weapon. Well neither are nukes but that didn't stop the US and Russia. It was supposed to be an outlier to showcase a ridiculous image in order for it to be compared to other objects that seem "normal" Of course most people (today) would find a hand grenade as not an okay object for self defense. But somewhere between having a cellphone and having a hand grenade is where the argument of self defense weapons want to be. Yeah, that's a totally intelligent post. /sarcasm I said self-defense. Nukes are a "deterrent".
Since you didn't read what I wrote, let me repeat it.
"It was supposed to be an outlier to showcase a ridiculous image"
|
On July 12 2013 06:16 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Safety and other precautions? Doesn't fuckin matter, it's legal to own and carry guns. Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached to carrying guns That is a terrifying point of view. Is it just the US law that you say is perfect?
he is being snarky.
|
On July 12 2013 06:16 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Safety and other precautions? Doesn't fuckin matter, it's legal to own and carry guns. Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached to carrying guns That is a terrifying point of view. Is it just the US law that you say is perfect?
The point is that that is the law... in a legal case.
|
Basing personal protection decisions based on "statistics" would lead one to take off their seatbelt as soon as they are 2 miles from their home, since statistics are that a significant majority of traffic accidents occur within 2 miles of your home.
#totallylogicalthinking
edit: On second thought, we are so far off track from the Zimmerman case, I'm going to refrain from continuing these arguments.
|
On July 12 2013 06:19 Kaitlin wrote:
Basing personal protection decisions based on "statistics" would lead one to take off their seatbelt as soon as they are 2 miles from their home, since statistics are that a significant majority of traffic accidents occur within 2 miles of your home.
#totallylogicalthinking
edit: On second thought, we are so far off track from the Zimmerman case, I'm going to refrain from continuing these arguments.
Well... we''re no more off track than the prosecutions closing arguments were.
|
On July 12 2013 06:16 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:07 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:57 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:45 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 05:40 dotHead wrote:On July 12 2013 05:21 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Because Martin would, justifiably, resist being held, especially if Zimmerman's only claim to hold him was that he "looked suspicious."
And again, ya'll are like totally missing the "carrying a gun" thing. Even in Texas it's not normal to just see people carrying guns. It's still rare even here. It's effing weird that he was carrying a gun, license or no. I lived in Dallas for almost 15 years, and I think almost everyone I knew had a CHL, and carried daily (Including myself). I now live in Philadelphia, where I would say about half of everyone I know carrys. I've lived in Dallas for 24 years and scarce few people I know actually carry their guns on a daily basis even if they have licenses. Now, tons of cars have guns in them. But actual on person guns...nope. We can both play the anecdotal numbers game about Texas. I bet I win. What does this have to do with the price of tea in china? The man had a gun, it was legal and he could carry it legally. You can't claim that people have weird intent when they are doing something that is totally allowed by law. If he had stabbed Martin, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes we would. I'd be saying "why the fuck did Zimmerman think he needed a knife?!" I have a knife in my bag right now. I am in the office. Do you know why I have it? Because I don't know when I will need a knife. Same with fire and tape. None fo this stuff is illegal or unreasonable. I don't know what you are fishing for. Just because it doesn't make sense to you does mean there is something wrong. Is it not against company policy to have a knife on the premises? I'd get fired on the spot if they discovered anything like that in my bag. Must like the seat belt, you don't wear it for the times you don't crash. I have a shotgun at my house and shells near by for that reason. You don't prepare for the time people don't break in. Ok one last post because I really don't like this analogy. Seatbelts aren't going to hurt you. Statistically you are more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that shotgun than you are to prevent a home invasion. And before you go saying "I'm trained!" or "I'm not that dumb!" that's exactly what everyone thinks. In a normally distributed large sample size on a scale of 0-10, you're somewhere between 4-6. Myth: You are more likely to injure or kill yourself with a firearm intended for self defense Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault or murder if you own & defend yourself with a gun Source: The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or Defense Against Crime, Don B. Kates, 1991 American Journal of Criminal Law Fact: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent bystander, only 2% of shootings by civilians kill an innocent personSource: Shall Issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws, Clayton Cramer, David Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994 This is seriously teetering on the edge of a gun control debate. Don't we have a thread for that?
To be fair to the police, those stats have always been like that. They are involved with a lot more shootings as a whole and they are never clear cut.
|
On July 12 2013 06:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:16 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 06:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Safety and other precautions? Doesn't fuckin matter, it's legal to own and carry guns. Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached to carrying guns That is a terrifying point of view. Is it just the US law that you say is perfect? he is being snarky. oh good. i was scared.
On July 12 2013 06:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:16 ComaDose wrote:On July 12 2013 06:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Safety and other precautions? Doesn't fuckin matter, it's legal to own and carry guns. Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached to carrying guns That is a terrifying point of view. Is it just the US law that you say is perfect? The point is that that is the law... in a legal case. No i believe the written point was "Because it's legal it obviously follows that there aren't any legitimate concerns attached[...]"
I didn't mean to insinuate the law should bend for this case or anything. But I hope we can all agree it shouldnt be imune to scrutiny due to being a law.
|
I think the tendency for this thread to shift towards gun control is enlightening. Not to this case, or the US as a whole, but on TL in general.
|
On July 12 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I think the tendency for this thread to shift towards gun control is enlightening. Not to this case, or the US as a whole, but on TL in general.
I'm not particularly enlightened. It's just that certain people seem to take issue with George Zimmerman's right to have been armed in this case, a right which even BDLR conceded in his closing, but yet people argue that it was wrong and should lead to his conviction. It's a demonstration of people's inability to understand the law as it applies to this case.
|
On July 12 2013 06:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I think the tendency for this thread to shift towards gun control is enlightening. Not to this case, or the US as a whole, but on TL in general. I'm not particularly enlightened. It's just that certain people seem to take issue with George Zimmerman's right to have been armed in this case, a right which even BDLR conceded in his closing, but yet people argue that it was wrong and should lead to his conviction. It's a demonstration of people's inability to understand the law as it applies to this case.
It is super annoying. I think GZ is an idiot for bringing his gun to Target..because, I think anyone who brings a gun to go get milk is just silly and thinks they are an action hero. However, I don't think it is reason for him to be guilty of anything.
|
On July 12 2013 06:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I think the tendency for this thread to shift towards gun control is enlightening. Not to this case, or the US as a whole, but on TL in general. I'm not particularly enlightened. It's just that certain people seem to take issue with George Zimmerman's right to have been armed in this case, a right which even BDLR conceded in his closing, but yet people argue that it was wrong and should lead to his conviction. It's a demonstration of people's inability to understand the law as it applies to this case.
I'm not talking about the case (as I said, not this case) nor am I talking about America (as I said, "or the US as a whole)
I find its always the same people bringing up gun control things. It's interesting, gives TL a certain flavor.
|
On July 12 2013 06:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 06:27 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 06:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I think the tendency for this thread to shift towards gun control is enlightening. Not to this case, or the US as a whole, but on TL in general. I'm not particularly enlightened. It's just that certain people seem to take issue with George Zimmerman's right to have been armed in this case, a right which even BDLR conceded in his closing, but yet people argue that it was wrong and should lead to his conviction. It's a demonstration of people's inability to understand the law as it applies to this case. It is super annoying. I think GZ is an idiot for bringing his gun to Target..because, I think anyone who brings a gun to go get milk is just silly and thinks they are an action hero. However, I don't think it is reason for him to be guilty of anything.
I never said it made him guilty. I said it made him an asshole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
