to be spineless.

________________________________________________________

Reason Mar 1, 2004

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/Politics/Kerry.Will.Abandon.War.On.Terrorism-621288.shtml


Kerry Will Abandon War on Terrorism

By Kenneth am. Timmerman


Sen. Kerry´s language has emboldened anti-American officials in Iran.


The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the I.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President George W. Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major I.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change I.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his I.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word. In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers - at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before. "I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking I.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaeda operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the I.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaeda operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades. "Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime. "By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."

Kenneth am. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight.

________________________________________________________

And now we see him for what he is, a traitor!

________________________________________________________


Also, how about Kerry calling National Guardsmen/women draft dodgers? Is that a smart campaign move?

________________________________________________________

I wonder who the terrorists want to be elected president?

________________________________________________________

I wonder if he even supports homeland security...

Kerry's such an asshole. I'm ashamed that he's the governor of my state.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47177 date=1078283132]
Kerry's such an asshole. I'm ashamed that he's the governor of my state.
[/quote]

umm..... Kerry is a Senator.... of Massachusetts...

Not sure about where you live, but I'm sure he is a Senator, not a Governor....

LoL =P

I heard a speech tonight with much of the same rhetoric spoken, not written. He repeated most of those quotes verbatim. However, he waffled on issues of jobs going overseas, from what he said a few months ago in New Hampshire, where he was against interfering with the outsourcing trend, to tonight, where he was amazingly in favor of it to rousing applause. The fact that he has appeared on www.cnn.com in flattering pictures from a low left angle nearly every single day for the last two months means he has CNN in his pocket, or they him.

I do not like John Kerry. He strikes me as an unscrupled opportunist, and his attempts to appeal to the broad spectrum of American people just seem incredibly hollow.

I am saddened. The best thing that could have happened to this country was driven out by an "establishment" frenzy that concentrated far too much on what he was not, as opposed to what he was.

Bleh...was tired. Sorry.

I'm a Mitt Romney fan.

I haven't heard much about him, but if he's serious about what he's saying there and is credible, he'd get my vote. If I had one.

Bush has thus far been almost completely appalling.

I thought he was the best candidate for President back in 1992, when I was a die-hard Republican (before my eyes were opened). But he bowed out because Clinton had a commanding lead for the Democratic nomination.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47350 date=1078363683]
I haven't heard much about him, but if he's serious about what he's saying there and is credible, he'd get my vote. If I had one.

[/quote]

So you believe that it would be better to ignore the terrorist threat like Clinton did?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47352 date=1078364274]
I thought he was the best candidate for President back in 1992, when I was a die-hard Republican (before my eyes were opened).
[/quote]

I'm sorry you crumbled to the leftists and their lies...

Well, I'm sorry you crumbled to the right wing and their paranoia...

It's probably happened, but I've rarely heard of a liberal becoming a Republican. But quite often you hear of Republicans evolving out of that party. I am one of them.

Unevolve now!

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47433 date=1078422364]
It's probably happened, but I've rarely heard of a liberal becoming a Republican. But quite often you hear of Republicans evolving out of that party. I am one of them.
[/quote]

Off the top of my head, liberals who became Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Dennis Miller, Rush Limbaugh (iirc).

I have heard of plenty of Republicans "evolving" to other conservative theories such as libertarianism, but it would seem that Republicans evolving into Democrats seems quite rare.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47433 date=1078422364]
It's probably happened, but I've rarely heard of a liberal becoming a Republican. But quite often you hear of Republicans evolving out of that party. I am one of them.
[/quote]

Unfortunately, there are many right wingers or Republicans who crumble to the leftist lies and obvious bias in todays media.

Liberals on: Gun Control
Ban firearms, this way only criminals will have them! A fine analogy: People are driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. The liberal solution, lower the speed limit to 20.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47456 date=1078432221]
Liberals on: Gun Control
Ban firearms, this way only criminals will have them! A fine analogy: People are driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. The liberal solution, lower the speed limit to 20.
[/quote]

You're wrong.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47488 date=1078441494]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=0#msg47456 date=1078432221]
Liberals on: Gun Control
Ban firearms, this way only criminals will have them! A fine analogy: People are driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. The liberal solution, lower the speed limit to 20.
[/quote]

You're wrong.
[/quote]

Anything to support that statment?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47492 date=1078441976]
Anything to support that statment?
[/quote]

Yes. Look at countries where firearms aren't freely available. You'll find that most criminals don't have them, and the police do have them.

So, you're saying that if you ban firearms social problems will disappear? You're saying that we should rely on the police for the sole source of our protection?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47496 date=1078442175]
So, you're saying that if you ban firearms social problems will disappear? You're saying that we should rely on the police for the sole source of our protection?
[/quote]

I did not produce the first statement. I support the second statement to some degree. You should rely on the police as your main source of protection. Freely available guns make things worse. Freely available guns enable lunatics to slaughter people on a large scale. Freely available guns enable the shootings you have had in schools. Freely available guns increase the violence you have to expect in your society and in your neighbourhood.

Oh, I'd like to add this:

I have 26 years experience living in a place where guns aren't freely available. In this time, I have not seen a gun in the hands of someone who wasn't supposed to have one. I have not seen a gun fired outside a shooting range.

I have seen police with guns.

I have seen military with automatic rifles.

I have seen hunters with hunting rifles.

I have seen guns at a shooting range.


Now, tell me of your experiences with guns?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47498 date=1078442493]
You should rely on the police as your main source of protection.
[/quote]

When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence."

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47498 date=1078442493]
Freely available guns make things worse.[/quote]

An easy victim or an armed citizen? Wouldn't you rather keep an attacker guessing? Studies have shown that even an irrational person acts rationally in purusit of an irrational goal.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47498 date=1078442493]
Freely available guns enable lunatics to slaughter people on a large scale.[/quote]

And what happens when guns aren't freely available? Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit? Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder? Does the word "holocaust" mean anything to you?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47498 date=1078442493]

Freely available guns enable the shootings you have had in schools.[/quote]
That is a perversion of the truth, such weapons used in those shootings were illegally obtained.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47498 date=1078442493]
Freely available guns increase the violence you have to expect in your society and in your neighbourhood.[/quote]

In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people. Consider the following:
[img]http://dark-wire.net/hosted/users/hazard/Home%20Invasion.jpg[/img]
Which house do you think an intruder would go for?

Conservative beaurocrats simply can't be trusted. They really have proved it, I'm afraid. Extreme leftists can't be trusted either, but I find that far fewer "Democrats" tend towards the far left of the political spectrum than "Republicans" stand solidly on the far right.

Conservatives have a horrible track record with money. I'm sorry, but no matter how you shake it, the last presidential term has destroyed the US economy. The last Republican president we had before the current regime destroyed the economy, too! It almost single-handedly lost him the 1992 election.

The conservative resistance to concepts like universal health care flies in the face of facts. Countries WITH comprehensive national health care plans cover more people and pay less money to do it.

Conservatives have irrationally supported big business as long as they possibly could, until public opinion turned so far against them that it became unsafe. Who did Ken Lay and his compatriots at Enron give large amounts of money to? Yes, the conservatives.

I've yet to hear one conservative attack the current free trade system. I'm sorry, but no matter where you stand on trade competition, it's not difficult to see that the current setup doesn't work.

And finally, can the "liberal media lies" crap. The current REPUBLICAN administration is the one that's dealt out the biggest portfolio of lies in recent memory. What's more, most of the major media are run by corporations now, so the idea that they have some sort of leftist agenda...well, let's see some proof.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence."
[/quote]

When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with a gun in his hand, you're likely to get wounded. When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with an empty hand, you're likely to be able to evade him.

You lose.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
An easy victim or an armed citizen? Wouldn't you rather keep an attacker guessing? Studies have shown that even an irrational person acts rationally in purusit of an irrational goal.
[/quote]

An armed robber or a non-armed robber? Wouldn't you rather pick the non-armed one?

You lose again.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
And what happens when guns aren't freely available? Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit? Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder? Does the word "holocaust" mean anything to you?
[/quote]

I didn't know the jews ever had guns. Obviously, it didn't keep them from getting killed. If the guns got taken away from them and they got shipped off to their camps, the guns obviously didn't help them. But thanks for providing a real example of when guns did not prove helpful.

Once more, you lose.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
That is a perversion of the truth, such weapons used in those shootings were illegally obtained.
[/quote]

The ability to obtain those weapons stems from the large amount of weapons in circulation. If all those weapons had been in the hands of police officers or safely locked away, the shootings would not have happened.

See, you lose.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.
[/quote]

In other countries, which I can speak of with experience of, invasions into your home are very uncommon. As are guns are even more uncommon.

Lose again, eh?



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
Consider the following:
[img]http://dark-wire.net/hosted/users/hazard/Home%20Invasion.jpg[/img]
Which house do you think an intruder would go for?
[/quote]

That looks so very american. The repeat offense intruder goes for the house on the right, since that's where he lives. Criminals want guns, so there's no way he lives in the house on the left.

Any further stupid questions?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47524 date=1078446235]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence."
[/quote]

When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with a gun in his hand, you're likely to get wounded. When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with an empty hand, you're likely to be able to evade him.

You lose.
[/quote]
That same drunk could come with a knife. Should we ban knives? That same attacker could come with a pipe bomb. Should we ban the sale of anything that could be used to make explosives? I'd prefer to take out the attacker before he gets the jump on me, wouldn't you?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47524 date=1078446235]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
An easy victim or an armed citizen? Wouldn't you rather keep an attacker guessing? Studies have shown that even an irrational person acts rationally in purusit of an irrational goal.
[/quote]

An armed robber or a non-armed robber? Wouldn't you rather pick the non-armed one?

You lose again.
[/quote]

Robbers will be armed through illegal arm sales with or without gun laws, why don't you realize that? Why would a criminal follow gun control laws? Hes a CRIMINAL.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47524 date=1078446235]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
And what happens when guns aren't freely available? Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit? Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder? Does the word "holocaust" mean anything to you?
[/quote]

I didn't know the jews ever had guns. Obviously, it didn't keep them from getting killed. If the guns got taken away from them and they got shipped off to their camps, the guns obviously didn't help them. But thanks for providing a real example of when guns did not prove helpful.

Once more, you lose.
[/quote]

The last time the government was trusted to keep order unarmed millions died. This became known as the holocaust. Had the jews been armed, they would have had the opportunity to fight back.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47524 date=1078446235]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
That is a perversion of the truth, such weapons used in those shootings were illegally obtained.
[/quote]

The ability to obtain those weapons stems from the large amount of weapons in circulation. If all those weapons had been in the hands of police officers or safely locked away, the shootings would not have happened.

See, you lose.
[/quote]

Quite simply they recieved the weapons through irresponsible parents.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47524 date=1078446235]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.
[/quote]

In other countries, which I can speak of with experience of, invasions into your home are very uncommon. As are guns are even more uncommon.

Lose again, eh?
[/quote]

So how do you explain the trend in England?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47524 date=1078446235]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
Consider the following:
[img]http://dark-wire.net/hosted/users/hazard/Home%20Invasion.jpg[/img]
Which house do you think an intruder would go for?
[/quote]

That looks so very american. The repeat offense intruder goes for the house on the right, since that's where he lives. Criminals want guns, so there's no way he lives in the house on the left.

[/quote]

You're catagorizing gun owners as criminals. Thats the stupidest perversion of the idea of the picture I've ever heard. You're telling me that as a rapist hell bent on commiting your crime you would enter the house on the right to search for a victim? Guns are a useful tool.

Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
That same drunk could come with a knife. Should we ban knives? That same attacker could come with a pipe bomb. Should we ban the sale of anything that could be used to make explosives? I'd prefer to take out the attacker before he gets the jump on me, wouldn't you?
[/quote]

Knives are banned in public places already. Pipe bombs are banned. Sales of things that can be used to easily make explosives are restricted and require a license to purchase. Producing or possessing explosive devices without a license is illegal.

Guns used defensively don't work because: If guns are free, the attacker has a gun too. He knows he'll be attacking, is prepared and kills you before you get your gun out. If you attempt to take him out first, you're the attacker and get the electric chair for murder.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
Robbers will be armed through illegal arm sales with or without gun laws, why don't you realize that? Why would a criminal follow gun control laws? Hes a CRIMINAL.
[/quote]

Robbers are typically not armed, no. You're theorizing, I'm speaking from experience (no, not personal experience, statistics).


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
The last time the government was trusted to keep order unarmed millions died. This became known as the holocaust. Had the jews been armed, they would have had the opportunity to fight back.
[/quote]

According to you, the jews were armed. When the government wanted to kill them, they first disarmed them, then killed them. Simple. Guns won't protect you from the government, because the government can outpower you any time they like anyway. What you may be able to do is get yourself killed. Think Waco.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
Quite simply they recieved the weapons through irresponsible parents.
[/quote]

Correct. Most people *are* stupid and irresponsible. That's why you don't want them to have guns. Letting stupid and irresponsible people have guns will lead to tragedies.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
So how do you explain the trend in England?
[/quote]

I'll have to refer you to Arta for that. I don't live in England. Do you?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
You're catagorizing gun owners as criminals. Thats the stupidest perversion of the idea of the picture I've ever heard. You're telling me that as a rapist hell bent on commiting your crime you would enter the house on the right to search for a victim? Guns are a useful tool.
[/quote]

Yes, that's a good categorization. It has a very good correlation, assuming non-police, non-military, in my environment. And in your environment, as soon as the gun control laws are implemented, they will be criminals there as well. Until then, they are criminals-to-be. Either because of their own intentional actions, or because of the neglect that will let their guns get into the wrong hands.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.
[/quote]

I am looking at facts. You're the one sitting there with closed eyes, repeating your gun propaganda. I know from personal experience that having gun control laws works just fine. What better facts could I be looking for?

And I don't read much liberal media. My opinions are my own. Feel free to for each answer I have given you point out the "incorrect fact" behind it, and I might reconsider my opinions.

edit: grammar + final word

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]What you may be able to do is get yourself killed. Think Waco.[/quote]
and Ruby Ridge.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.[/quote]
It is commonly viewed as knowing you have a weak position when you argue not against the facts, but against the source of the facts.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
That same drunk could come with a knife. Should we ban knives? That same attacker could come with a pipe bomb. Should we ban the sale of anything that could be used to make explosives? I'd prefer to take out the attacker before he gets the jump on me, wouldn't you?
[/quote]

Knives are banned in public places already. Pipe bombs are banned. Sales of things that can be used to easily make explosives are restricted and require a license to purchase. Producing or possessing explosive devices without a license is illegal.

Guns used defensively don't work because: If guns are free, the attacker has a gun too. He knows he'll be attacking, is prepared and kills you before you get your gun out. If you attempt to take him out first, you're the attacker and get the electric chair for murder.
[/quote]

Oh wow, its illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. Its illegal to commit the robbery in the first place. The majority of weapons used in an illegal action are illegal weapons! If you take away the guns they will simply go to something else!

Guns defensively don't work? Thousands of people in the USA annually use their firearms as protection, and they save their lives and the lives of children. If a burglar entered my house, he'd be staring down a Winchester .12 gauge or a Browning .308. Pretty good deterrent don't you think?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
Robbers will be armed through illegal arm sales with or without gun laws, why don't you realize that? Why would a criminal follow gun control laws? Hes a CRIMINAL.
[/quote]

Robbers are typically not armed, no. You're theorizing, I'm speaking from experience (no, not personal experience, statistics).
[/quote]

So, you would rather risk it? Just, hope that the criminal isn't armed? What if the intruder is a rapist who is in your home to rape and murder your family and he is armed? I'm sure you'll make a good witness at the trial of the murder of your family, Adron.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
The last time the government was trusted to keep order unarmed millions died. This became known as the holocaust. Had the jews been armed, they would have had the opportunity to fight back.
[/quote]

According to you, the jews were armed. When the government wanted to kill them, they first disarmed them, then killed them. Simple. Guns won't protect you from the government, because the government can outpower you any time they like anyway. What you may be able to do is get yourself killed. Think Waco.
[/quote]

I wonder where we would all be if the founding fathers of the United States had believed as you did. Since resisiting the government will just get you killed. Did you forget that whole American Revolution thing, when a power of farmers and peasants restisted an empire? Who won that war by the way? The fact is that the government was entrusted as the sole protector of lives. That turned out real well. Lets say that there is an armed intruder in your home. You call 911. The police are speeding towards your house at 80 mph. Personally, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards the perp at 800 mph.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
Quite simply they recieved the weapons through irresponsible parents.
[/quote]

Correct. Most people *are* stupid and irresponsible. That's why you don't want them to have guns. Letting stupid and irresponsible people have guns will lead to tragedies.
[/quote]

Training and teachings are neccessary, I never said that they weren't.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
So how do you explain the trend in England?
[/quote]

I'll have to refer you to Arta for that. I don't live in England. Do you?

[/quote]

No, I count on international research.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
You're catagorizing gun owners as criminals. Thats the stupidest perversion of the idea of the picture I've ever heard. You're telling me that as a rapist hell bent on commiting your crime you would enter the house on the right to search for a victim? Guns are a useful tool.
[/quote]

Yes, that's a good categorization. It has a very good correlation, assuming non-police, non-military, in my environment. And in your environment, as soon as the gun control laws are implemented, they will criminals there as well. Until then, they are criminals-to-be. Either because of their own intentional actions, or because of the neglect that will let their guns get into the wrong hands.
[/quote]

A responsible gun owner will never have the problem of a firearm ending up in enemy hands. As far as gun control by the government is concerned, all I can see is "Molon Lave" or "Come and Get Them". Fortunatly, the government has no right to take my firearms. I have the HUMAN RIGHT to protect myself and my family.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47540 date=1078449550]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47532 date=1078447829]
Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.
[/quote]

I am looking at facts. You're the one sitting there with closed eyes, repeating your gun propaganda. I know from personal experience that having gun control laws works just fine. What better facts could I be looking for?
[/quote]

You're giving me the same run around I get from all firearm proponents about how they are a liability and only used for evil. Too bad you all cannot see firearms as a useful tool. What is the difference between freedom and slavery? A musket.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
Oh wow, its illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. Its illegal to commit the robbery in the first place. The majority of weapons used in an illegal action are illegal weapons! If you take away the guns they will simply go to something else!
[/quote]

I'm not saying it's illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. I'm saying it's illegal to carry a knife or bomb. Just like it's illegal to carry a gun. Carrying a *weapon* is illegal, be it knife, gun, bomb, whatever.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
Guns defensively don't work? Thousands of people in the USA annually use their firearms as protection, and they save their lives and the lives of children. If a burglar entered my house, he'd be staring down a Winchester .12 gauge or a Browning .308. Pretty good deterrent don't you think?
[/quote]

Some get killed as well. When the armed robber enters your house and you bring out your gun, you get shot dead. There's no greater reason you should be able to kill him than for him to be able to kill you. When you add in the likeliness of there being multiple robbers, a whole gang of them, the chances of your survival are dropping rapidly. You might as well shoot yourself already and save them the trouble. Ah, finally a good use for you gun. Go ahead.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
So, you would rather risk it? Just, hope that the criminal isn't armed? What if the intruder is a rapist who is in your home to rape and murder your family and he is armed? I'm sure you'll make a good witness at the trial of the murder of your family, Adron.
[/quote]

You're the one suggesting that everyone should be armed. Do you want the criminal to be armed or not? Your choice is for the criminal to be armed. Mine is for the criminal not to be armed. I want to point out here, that as a responsible citizen, you're storing your gun locked away so your children can't get to it, even if they come into your bedroom while you're asleep. You thus have no chance to get your gun out quickly. The robber is standing at the bottom of your bed, pointing his gun at you. You're dead meat.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
The fact is that the government was entrusted as the sole protector of lives. That turned out real well. Lets say that there is an armed intruder in your home. You call 911. The police are speeding towards your house at 80 mph. Personally, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards the perp at 800 mph.
[/quote]

As the scenario above showed, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards you at 800 mph. Because either you're irresponsible and storing the gun where it is accessible, then you get the school shootout, or you're responsible, and then the gun is of no use to you.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
Training and teachings are neccessary, I never said that they weren't.
[/quote]

Ah, now, this is such a great idea. Everyone being responsible with their guns. Yes, that's a perfect idea. At least good enough that it should be included in your armed robber self defence scenarios.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
No, I count on international research.
[/quote]

Ah. Could you please point me to the original unbiased source of your information, since it's not your personal experience?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
A responsible gun owner will never have the problem of a firearm ending up in enemy hands. As far as gun control by the government is concerned, all I can see is "Molon Lave" or "Come and Get Them". Fortunatly, the government has no right to take my firearms. I have the HUMAN RIGHT to protect myself and my family.
[/quote]

No, you have no human right to carry a gun. Hopefully you'll soon come to realize that. Preferably before you look out at the world from behind bars.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
You're giving me the same run around I get from all firearm proponents about how they are a liability and only used for evil. Too bad you all cannot see firearms as a useful tool. What is the difference between freedom and slavery? A musket.
[/quote]

Yes, that is so true. Muskets is what enabled slavery.

And no, I'm not saying firearms can only be used for evil. Police need firearms. They keep them accessible when they need them, and they watch their firearms. What I'm saying is that firearms don't belong with the general population, where they will either be abused or not useful.

[quote author=Zakath link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47511 date=1078444473]
Conservatives have a horrible track record with money. I'm sorry, but no matter how you shake it, the last presidential term has destroyed the US economy. The last Republican president we had before the current regime destroyed the economy, too! It almost single-handedly lost him the 1992 election.
[/quote]

Now, let's just conveniently forget about the Gulf War and when a couple of planes destroyed an icon of the American economy while already entering a recession.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
Oh wow, its illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. Its illegal to commit the robbery in the first place. The majority of weapons used in an illegal action are illegal weapons! If you take away the guns they will simply go to something else!
[/quote]

I'm not saying it's illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. I'm saying it's illegal to carry a knife or bomb. Just like it's illegal to carry a gun. Carrying a *weapon* is illegal, be it knife, gun, bomb, whatever.
[/quote]

No its not. Carrying a concealed firearm with a liscence is perfectly legal, and it is always legal to carry a knife.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
Guns defensively don't work? Thousands of people in the USA annually use their firearms as protection, and they save their lives and the lives of children. If a burglar entered my house, he'd be staring down a Winchester .12 gauge or a Browning .308. Pretty good deterrent don't you think?
[/quote]

Some get killed as well. When the armed robber enters your house and you bring out your gun, you get shot dead. There's no greater reason you should be able to kill him than for him to be able to kill you. When you add in the likeliness of there being multiple robbers, a whole gang of them, the chances of your survival are dropping rapidly. You might as well shoot yourself already and save them the trouble. Ah, finally a good use for you gun. Go ahead.
[/quote]

Some get killed, true. Many thousands defend themselves. Who would you rather be? I welcome the chance for a whole gang. My shotgun holds 8 rounds, and my .308 holds five. I only need one per person. The liklihood of having your gun taken from you and used against you is slim to none.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
So, you would rather risk it? Just, hope that the criminal isn't armed? What if the intruder is a rapist who is in your home to rape and murder your family and he is armed? I'm sure you'll make a good witness at the trial of the murder of your family, Adron.
[/quote]

You're the one suggesting that everyone should be armed. Do you want the criminal to be armed or not? Your choice is for the criminal to be armed. Mine is for the criminal not to be armed. I want to point out here, that as a responsible citizen, you're storing your gun locked away so your children can't get to it, even if they come into your bedroom while you're asleep. You thus have no chance to get your gun out quickly. The robber is standing at the bottom of your bed, pointing his gun at you. You're dead meat.
[/quote]

You're dead armed or not if there is a robber at the base of your bed. I prefer to go down fighting. You can't keep criminals from being armed Adron. Get over it. Legal or not they will get firearms.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
The fact is that the government was entrusted as the sole protector of lives. That turned out real well. Lets say that there is an armed intruder in your home. You call 911. The police are speeding towards your house at 80 mph. Personally, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards the perp at 800 mph.
[/quote]

As the scenario above showed, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards you at 800 mph. Because either you're irresponsible and storing the gun where it is accessible, then you get the school shootout, or you're responsible, and then the gun is of no use to you.
[/quote]

My gun is locked and accessible, and I can get to it in an extremely brief time in case of emergency.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
Training and teachings are neccessary, I never said that they weren't.
[/quote]

Ah, now, this is such a great idea. Everyone being responsible with their guns. Yes, that's a perfect idea. At least good enough that it should be included in your armed robber self defence scenarios.
[/quote]

You object to somebody shooting an attacker in self defense?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
No, I count on international research.
[/quote]

Ah. Could you please point me to the original unbiased source of your information, since it's not your personal experience?
[/quote]

As could you point out yours?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
A responsible gun owner will never have the problem of a firearm ending up in enemy hands. As far as gun control by the government is concerned, all I can see is "Molon Lave" or "Come and Get Them". Fortunatly, the government has no right to take my firearms. I have the HUMAN RIGHT to protect myself and my family.
[/quote]


No, you have no human right to carry a gun. Hopefully you'll soon come to realize that. Preferably before you look out at the world from behind bars.[/quote]
So you're saying that I have no right to protect myself from those who are armed with guns? That makes sense. What do you think? That we should all just be friends?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47546 date=1078450662]
You're giving me the same run around I get from all firearm proponents about how they are a liability and only used for evil. Too bad you all cannot see firearms as a useful tool. What is the difference between freedom and slavery? A musket.
[/quote]

Yes, that is so true. Muskets is what enabled slavery.
[/quote]

If you'll recall, war ended slavery.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47550 date=1078451685]
And no, I'm not saying firearms can only be used for evil. Police need firearms. They keep them accessible when they need them, and they watch their firearms. What I'm saying is that firearms don't belong with the general population, where they will either be abused or not useful.
[/quote]

Not be useful? Why don't you tell that to the founding fathers of the United States. Yea... their use of firearms sure proved to be anything but constructive. The general population sure screwed up with their use of firearms didn't they? Why don't you tell that to the millions who have been saved because they have armed themselves. Why don't you try telling that to those unfortunate enough not to have been armed. The general RESPONSIBLE population has the human right to protect themselves from the evils in society. People need firearms too. Basically you're saying that a woman who is about to be raped should just call for help, instead of stopping her attacker. The cops should be there in a few minutes right? Until then she should just roll the dice and take her chances, hopefully he will be a nice rapist and wait until help arrives. What dream world do you live in Adron? You must take the protection of yourself and the people you love into your hands. My home is guarded. You want to know the international sound for "Get the FUCK out"? It's the sound of a shotgun round being loaded into the chamber. Don't tread on me.

[u]Lets Talk Facts[/u]
-Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

-Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

-The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

-The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

-Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 2/28/94 (over 6 yrs.) Florida issued 204,108 permits; only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used).

-Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

ˇ 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
ˇ 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
ˇ 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
ˇ 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
ˇ 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
ˇ 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

-All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries. It is impossible to draw valid conclusions without taking into account differences in each nation's collection of crime data, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by "gun control" proponents.

-According to attorney David Kopel's The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, awarded Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel concluded "Contrary to the claims of the American gun control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations." He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: "Foreign style gun control is doomed to failure in America. Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control...postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos."

-Laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. After adopting a mandatory penalty for using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime in 1975, Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 1 1% in 15 years. South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990 with a similar law. Other impressive declines were recorded in other states using mandatory penalties, such as Florida (homicide rate down 33% in 17 years), Delaware ( homicide rate down 33% in 19 years), Montana (down 42% 1976-1992) and New Hampshire (homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992).

-No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the pro hibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.

Enjoy the facts.

This may be kinda off topic but it relates to hazards post a lil bit I think or at least parts of this movie do.If you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine you should.
Blah im tired this prolly sounds stupid.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47589 date=1078459992]
This may be kinda off topic but it relates to hazards post a lil bit I think or at least parts of this movie do.If you haven't seen Bowling for Columbine you should.
Blah im tired this prolly sounds stupid.
[/quote]

Mostly because Bowling for Columbine was largely made up. IIRC, some people even considered suing Moore for libel.

Really? What parts were made up and who thought of sueing him?

A late response, but:
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47503 date=1078443340]
I have seen military with automatic rifles.
[/quote]
AFAIK, the automatic mode on an automatic rifle is illegal by international law (Geneva convention)...

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
No its not. Carrying a concealed firearm with a liscence is perfectly legal, and it is always legal to carry a knife.
[/quote]

You're talking about your reality, I'm talking about mine. It's not legal to carry a knife.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
Some get killed, true. Many thousands defend themselves. Who would you rather be? I welcome the chance for a whole gang. My shotgun holds 8 rounds, and my .308 holds five. I only need one per person. The liklihood of having your gun taken from you and used against you is slim to none.
[/quote]

You're being stupid. You think you're rambo? You think you can dodge bullets while killing everyone else?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
You're dead armed or not if there is a robber at the base of your bed. I prefer to go down fighting. You can't keep criminals from being armed Adron. Get over it. Legal or not they will get firearms.
[/quote]

Where guns are forbidden, less robbers get firearms. It is as simple as that.

Another fact is that yes, you can survive a robber at the base of your bed, IF you live in a society where guns are forbidden. He has no real reason to try to kill you unless he's afraid of you, if he suspects that you may have a gun and try to kill him.

The existence of guns increase violence.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
My gun is locked and accessible, and I can get to it in an extremely brief time in case of emergency.
[/quote]

You say? I just don't see how you can arrange that. Please elaborate.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
You object to somebody shooting an attacker in self defense?
[/quote]

No. I merely point out that if you store your gun where your children can't reach it as your instruction for responsible gun owners will most likely specify, then it's probably too inaccessible.

Also, I object to somebody shooting an attacker in anything that is not self defence. That includes every situation in which the attacker is not an immediate risk of personal injury to someone.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
As could you point out yours?
[/quote]

I will see if I can find anything that you would be able to read.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
So you're saying that I have no right to protect myself from those who are armed with guns? That makes sense. What do you think? That we should all just be friends?
[/quote]

I'm saying that you have no human right to have a gun. Your claim to have a human right to have a gun is about the same as Iraq claiming to have a human right to have ballistic nuclear missiles. Do you want to give them some, just so they can protect themselves?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
If you'll recall, war ended slavery.
[/quote]

If you'll recall, white men with muskets coming to Africa founded slavery.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47564 date=1078456147]
Not be useful? Why don't you tell that to the founding fathers of the United States. Yea... their use of firearms sure proved to be anything but constructive. The general population sure screwed up with their use of firearms didn't they? Why don't you tell that to the millions who have been saved because they have armed themselves. Why don't you try telling that to those unfortunate enough not to have been armed. The general RESPONSIBLE population has the human right to protect themselves from the evils in society. People need firearms too. Basically you're saying that a woman who is about to be raped should just call for help, instead of stopping her attacker. The cops should be there in a few minutes right? Until then she should just roll the dice and take her chances, hopefully he will be a nice rapist and wait until help arrives. What dream world do you live in Adron? You must take the protection of yourself and the people you love into your hands. My home is guarded. You want to know the international sound for "Get the FUCK out"? It's the sound of a shotgun round being loaded into the chamber. Don't tread on me.
[/quote]

Maybe I live in the world of your dreams, because the risk of me getting killed in a gun fight is just a fraction of yours. Lucky me. Don't you wish you could be so lucky?

So yes, you completely screwed up with your free use of firearms.

And you want to know what? The sound of a shotgun round being loaded into the chamber is a "get out" sound unique to a small number of uncivilized countries, including the USA.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47503 date=1078443340]
Now, tell me of your experiences with guns?
[/quote]

My firearms experience? I have been shooting rifles and shotguns for about 12 years and have been firing handguns of all sizes and calibers for about 7 years. I have been hunting for nearly as long as I have been able to shoot. I have taken and passed the beginner and advanced firearms training courses. I am a liscensed hunter in the states of Florida, Georgia, and Kansas. I am a Junior member of the National Rifle Association and have been for a number of years. I personally own 3 firearms and my father an additional 7. I make a strong effort to make it to the gun range at least once a month for practice and drills. I have lived in all of my life in a society in which sometimes victims who could have protected themselves but instead relied on the police who, on deadly occasions, have failed them.

Also, you're saying that after 26 years in a society you have never heard of or seen of a violent crime where a gun was used?

[quote author=Yoni link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47616 date=1078482693]
A late response, but:
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47503 date=1078443340]
I have seen military with automatic rifles.
[/quote]
AFAIK, the automatic mode on an automatic rifle is illegal by international law (Geneva convention)...
[/quote]

It is? Scary... What's it supposed to be? Burst? It's possible that the automatic mode on those is blocked. It's definitely not blocked on the old submachineguns of the military though; their construction is pretty much a huge bolt moving back and forth. It hooks up on the trigger when you release it, but there's just no mechanical feature that could enable single shots.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47624 date=1078489301]
My firearms experience? I have been shooting rifles and shotguns for about 12 years and have been firing handguns of all sizes and calibers for about 7 years. I have been hunting for nearly as long as I have been able to shoot. I have taken and passed the beginner and advanced firearms training courses. I am a liscensed hunter in the states of Florida, Georgia, and Kansas. I am a Junior member of the National Rifle Association and have been for a number of years. I personally own 3 firearms and my father an additional 7. I make a strong effort to make it to the gun range at least once a month for practice and drills. I have lived in all of my life in a society in which sometimes victims who could have protected themselves but instead relied on the police who, on deadly occasions, have failed them.

Also, you're saying that after 26 years in a society you have never heard of or seen of a violent crime where a gun was used?
[/quote]

No, I'm saying that I have never personally seen it. Of course I have heard of violent crimes where guns were used, just like I have heard of cannibals who killed and ate their victims. What I mean is that they are unfrequent enough that you can live for 26 years without seeing them. With any luck, I should be able to live my whole life without seeing a violent crime commited with the use of guns.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47578 date=1078457940]
Enjoy the facts.
[/quote]

I just wanted to let you know that I haven't missed your facts. Unfortunately from them it seems that you won't accept the fact of crime rates being lower in countries where guns aren't free as evidence, and that's the only numerical fact I could've given you.

What I expect from a law against guns is that crime will rise for a while. There are enough guns on the market that it will take many years to lower the concentration to a point where guns will be sufficiently harder to obtain. Some crimes are likely to drop away quicker than others.

And yes, you need to search for an seize guns. Luckily, you're already prepared to accept that. Your current anti-terrorist laws are stricter than laws in other countries, so using them to search for an seize guns should be no problem whatsoever. Someone having a gun after the society has forbidden guns might well be a terrorist.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=15#msg47505 date=1078443569]
In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people. Consider the following:
[img]http://dark-wire.net/hosted/users/hazard/Home%20Invasion.jpg[/img]
Which house do you think an intruder would go for?
[/quote]

Why couldn't you just have a big sign saying you support guns or have that little man with holes in him on your door but not actually have a gun? It would work right? Then there really is no reason to have a gun because surely a criminal will not enter your house according to you.

Well, I think Adron and I stand in the exact same position on this issue so I don't really have a lot to add, but I'll comment on the position here.

Gun crime is on the increase here, as it is in most places. That is the only point I will concede. Yet, even given that, we do not have a fully armed police force. We don't even call it a force here - it's the police service - and I think that's an important distinction. To combat the rise in gun crime, specialist police units exist all around the country that are armed and able to respond very quickly to gun-related incidents when they occur.

In my life to date, I have very rarely seen firearms in the UK. So few times that I can list them here:

- At my Uncle's place in the country (he has a .22 bolt-action rifle)
- Once when I was working in a house that neighboured the Home Secretary's. He had an armed police officer as a guard. He had a handgun, I forget what sort. He was part of some specialist unit for protecting VIPs and diplomats.

That's it. When speaking of crime, I've never heard a gun being fired, never seen a criminal with a gun, never feared that a criminal might invade my home with one. I think that americans forget the possibility that criminals there only carry guns because they believe that their victims will have them. It works both ways. I can only remember seeing a gun in the hands of a criminal on TV once, and even incidents of gun crime are pretty unusual here - I would assume that it happens every day in the states, but here, it would be unusual to hear of more than one or so a month. Serious gun incidents like Tony Martin or Dunblane come along once in a blue moon.

To put it simply, if you'll forgive the pun: Guns in the hands of civilians are overkill. The only reason you'd need one is if the other guy has one. It's just a lot simpler if no one has them, which is why I support heavy gun control - it prevents, or at least seriously impedes, guns from being a problem in the first place. I don't think that the same applies in the states. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. That said, there's no sensible reason why civilians need automatic rifles. No reason why they'd need submachine guns, automatic shotguns, or in fact, auomatic weapons of any kind. Even semi-automatic weapons are a bit of a leap for me. It seems sensible to restrict those kinds of weapons. It also seems sensible to carry out extensive background checks before issueing a firearms certificate, like they do here, and to keep records of gun purchases forever. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if you want to buy a tool that you could potentially use to kill vast numbers of your fellow countrymen, that a record is kept of your ownership. If the government is going to trust citizens to have guns, should the citizens trust the government to use records of gun ownership responsibly?

Spouting statistics doesn't really help your argument either:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. 1998 data.)

Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense. (Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45 (2): 263-267)

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. (Embassies and foreign crime-reporting agencies/FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1995. The number for Germany represents total murders by firearms.)

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures. (Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)

I'm going to stop there, I think I've made my point. I don't by any means think that the situation is as simple in the US as it is here, but it's not nearly as clear-cut as some people here seem to think it is.

Hazard's root argument seems to draw validity from his perceived right to protect himself by firearm is more important than society's right to protect itself from permeation of firearms. Unless I misunderstand?

I don't know where I stand on this, and am carefully listening to each of your arguments. This is as good as time as any for me to form an opinion.

I do wish Hazard would respond directly to Adron's points with counterpoints. My impression so far has been Adron responds reasonably directly to Hazard's points, but Hazard responds to Adrons with something not comparable. Particularly with quoting U.S.-only statistics is not a controlled way of studying. Without a control, it is generally accepted that measurements cannot be trusted.

I try to respond reasonably directly. There is no really good counterpoint to a scenario where the assumption is that Hazard has a gun pointed at an armed criminal entering his house.

It's easy enough to make up a dozen other equally (or more) probable scenarios though.

What I try to point out for that situation is:

If Hazard is responsible and stores his gun unloaded and out of reach of children, chances are he won't have his gun there in his hand at the time he needs it. (logical conclusion)

If Hazard keeps his gun easily accessible at all times, chances are his children will be able to get at it and kill or injure themselves or others by accident or intentionally. (supported by Arta's statistics)

If guns weren't so easily accessible, there'd be a rather large probability that the criminal didn't have a gun. (as evidenced in other countries)

If an criminal doesn't think Hazard is armed, there's less reason to start shooting. (logical conclusion)

Even with a gun in his hand, Hazard is probably not rambo. An experienced criminal might be more adept at shooting people, and might hit Hazard first. (assumption + logical conclusion)

How many murders happen in Sweden per year? Just out of curiousity. From what the biased liberal media has shown me, it's far greater than that of the United States. If that's true then perhaps that is why you don't see the need for protection of that level in America.

In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47723 date=1078517703]
In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.
[/quote]

Where did you find that information? I'd like to get an exact number for the US. But, that's besides the point; it's now clear why you have the stance you do on what Hazard has been saying. With that low of crime rate in Sweden it's not really a big problem as it is in America where there are more than that many murders per 2 days.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47716 date=1078517053]
How many murders happen in Sweden per year? Just out of curiousity. From what the biased liberal media has shown me, it's far greater than that of the United States. If that's true then perhaps that is why you don't see the need for protection of that level in America.
[/quote]

I'm curious where you get the idea of "biased liberal media"? I won't tell you why until you answer.

I got the term from another post, I beleive Hazard's. It seemed to fit so I used it, since I felt it described what I was trying to say pretty well. Most media is going to tell the public what they want to hear, what the current public opinion is. The current position on gun control is more against than for, in my opinion. And from what I've seen, in my home town anyway, more news stations seem to be more liberal than conservative. From what I can tell I can only find more conservative leaning news programs on conservative networks. It may be because I live in a more liberal town and such, I'm not sure. I'm also not sure how gun control is portrayed in Sweden. However, I personally feel that the media is biased towards public opinion, which is the point since it helps it sell, and usually states (or comes off) as being liberal. Of course, you could say that I only used that term because Hazard did, which would destroy the validity of my previous post(s).

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47578 date=1078457940]
-No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the pro hibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves.
[/quote]

What empirical evidence do you have?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47709 date=1078515186]
Hazard's root argument seems to draw validity from his perceived right to protect himself by firearm is more important than society's right to protect itself from permeation of firearms. Unless I misunderstand?
[/quote]

This is impossible. You can't stop criminals from using guns. Why don't you get that? If the criminals have them shouldn't a law abiding citizen be permitted to protect himself?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47709 date=1078515186]
I do wish Hazard would respond directly to Adron's points with counterpoints. My impression so far has been Adron responds reasonably directly to Hazard's points, but Hazard responds to Adrons with something not comparable. Particularly with quoting U.S.-only statistics is not a controlled way of studying. Without a control, it is generally accepted that measurements cannot be trusted.
[/quote]

How much more directly would you like me to respond without getting mean about it?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47629 date=1078489811]

No, I'm saying that I have never personally seen it. Of course I have heard of violent crimes where guns were used, just like I have heard of cannibals who killed and ate their victims. What I mean is that they are unfrequent enough that you can live for 26 years without seeing them. With any luck, I should be able to live my whole life without seeing a violent crime commited with the use of guns.
[/quote]

I've never seen a person kill another in cold blood. So I've never seen a murder, therefore I have never seen a gun used to kill another person, therefore I should think guns are wrong?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47723 date=1078517703]
In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.
[/quote]

Differences in the structure of society. You can't compare a small country like Sweden to a larger country or the world.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47657 date=1078497887]

To put it simply, if you'll forgive the pun: Guns in the hands of civilians are overkill. The only reason you'd need one is if the other guy has one. It's just a lot simpler if no one has them, which is why I support heavy gun control - it prevents, or at least seriously impedes, guns from being a problem in the first place. [/quote]

Guns in the hands of civilians are not overkill for the reasons you stated yourself! Civilians need guns because people hell bent on hurting them have them! How many times do you see a crime in which guns were legally obtained? Not very often. You can't stop criminals from having guns!

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47657 date=1078497887]

Spouting statistics doesn't really help your argument either:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. 1998 data.)

Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense. (Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45 (2): 263-267)

[/quote]

All those facts prove only one thing, and it is something I have never condemnd anywhere in this thread nor in my experiences. I have never, ever, said that proper training and schooling is NOT neccessary for the owners of firearms.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47657 date=1078497887]
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. (Embassies and foreign crime-reporting agencies/FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1995. The number for Germany represents total murders by firearms.)

Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874,a 6% decrease from 1998 figures. (Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)
[/quote]

Please look back on the evidence I have offered based on the studies of many criminologists. Criminologists agree that there is no evidence so far that gun control laws will have any positive effect on crime.

--

This is the basic fact of the matter. Criminals will always have guns. You have a HUMAN RIGHT to protect the life of yourself, your family, and others. You can claim all that you want that violent crime would be lowered without weapons, but there is absolutly no proof of that. You have to protect yourself in this day and age. You have to protect your family. You cannot depend on a miniscule minority to be able to protect the vast majority. You have to defend yourself, and a trained firearm owner can do so, and he will. These are the facts of the case, and they cannot be disputed.

By the way, the unemployment rate right now is the same as it was under Clinton in 96.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/moran200403040834.asp

I haven't read the entire thread but are Hazard, St0rm, and I the only Republicans that have posted?

It would seem that the people who tend to be attracted towards posting on these forums are liberals and Democrats. Unfortunatly, the liberals and the Democrats whose policies would plunge the nation into chaos are the majority, which is obviously why so much of the society, including the media, is dominated by liberal ideals and beliefs. I'm proud to stand with the minority who have the freedom and liberties of people as a priority. Liberals and Democrats alike these days seem to despise actions that would bring freedom and equality to all people. Some things the left tend to not tell you: high taxes and tight restrictions keep minority upstarts down, and the fact that only 62% of Democrats supported the Civil Rights act compared to the 92% of Republicans.

The other dominant trend in this country is for the "majority" to say NO to war, unless of course a Democrat is President. This is of course due to the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country, so of course, the majority objects to a war that their party doesn't support. It is unfortunate that there are those who cling to the hope that everything can be settled diplomatically, and that nothing is worth sacrificing lives. I'm reminded of the words of John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

hismajesty I think you mixed up your words. DId you mean to say sweden has far less murders than america. I say they shut down the gun factories and melt down all the guns and make something useful out of them that way no one can have guns.
We live in a time where you don't have to kill your food to eat it and the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun. Knives are illegal if the blade is over 3.5 inches I believe it is. And people who have guns to "protect" themselves would shoot people for taking replaceable everyday items.

http://www.nra-kkk.org/

I'm not a republican per se, but I agree with most republican ideas, so I guess you could call me one.

Mostly, I'm just sick of intolerant liberals plugging their ears and preaching their ideas.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47751 date=1078522233]I say they shut down the gun factories and melt down all the guns and make something useful out of them that way no one can have guns.[/quote]
Yes! We should all hold hands and sing camp fire songs! And we can tell stories of sunshine and lollipops! Wrong. So the use of weapons to defend your freedom is wrong? You shouldn't fight for what you believe in? Your idea is ludicrous and impossible.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47751 date=1078522233]the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun[/quote]
Wrong. You don't have a scrap of evidence to support that.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47751 date=1078522233]Knives are illegal if the blade is over 3.5 inches I believe it is.[/quote]Wrong again. Where the hell are you getting this stuff?

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47751 date=1078522233]And people who have guns to "protect" themselves would shoot people for taking replaceable everyday items.[/quote] Your life is not a replacable item.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47751 date=1078522233]http://www.nra-kkk.org/
[/quote]There is nothing the National Rifle Association hates more than the Klan. The Klu Klux Klan were those who began talk of gun control in the United States, in order to disarm law abiding african-americans.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47752 date=1078522258]
Mostly, I'm just sick of intolerant liberals plugging their ears and preaching their ideas.
[/quote]
Amen to that Brother!!!

[quote]hismajesty I think you mixed up your words. DId you mean to say sweden has far less murders than america[/quote]

Isn't that what I said?

[quote]the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun[/quote]

I know plenty of morons who do not carry a gun.

What freedom do you have to fight for that a gun would help? I didn't say take your rights to guns away. I said destroy all of the guns...
On the second note believe whatever you want I could hunt and list facts all day, but your stuck in your ways.
Knives above a certain length are considered a deadly weapon, one of my best freinds is a traveling kid and I've had to bail him out of jail for having a knife. So, go tell the New Orelans police its not illegal.
If your life wasnt at stake and 2 guys were loading your 40+" tv up in the back of their truck you wouldn't shoot at em?

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47759 date=1078523079]What freedom do you have to fight for that a gun would help?[/quote]Two words, American Revolution. Owned.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47759 date=1078523079]On the second note believe whatever you want I could hunt and list facts all day, but your stuck in your ways.[/quote]Show me your hard evidence that gun control will lower violent crime. God forbid I'm stuck on freedom and liberty.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47759 date=1078523079]Knives above a certain length are considered a deadly weapon[/quote]Knives of any size are considered deadly weapons. It doesn't mean you cant carry them.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47759 date=1078523079]one of my best freinds is a traveling kid and I've had to bail him out of jail for having a knife[/quote]What crime was he commiting that got him caught? A cop cant just stop and search you because he thinks you have a knife.

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47759 date=1078523079]If your life wasnt at stake and 2 guys were loading your 40+" tv up in the back of their truck you wouldn't shoot at em?[/quote]No. Thats irresponsible and against the rules of engagment. The best course of action would get a description of the perpetrators and their truck and alert the authorities of the crime in progress. If they threatened me, I would draw my weapon. If they made a move, I'd end it then and there.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47727 date=1078518164]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47723 date=1078517703]
In 2003, there were 195 murders, manslaughters or assaults resulting in deaths in Sweden.
[/quote]

Where did you find that information? I'd like to get an exact number for the US. But, that's besides the point; it's now clear why you have the stance you do on what Hazard has been saying. With that low of crime rate in Sweden it's not really a big problem as it is in America where there are more than that many murders per 2 days.
[/quote]

You won't be able to find a number for the US from the same source I'm afraid. I found the information for Sweden at www.scb.se, but they're a Swedish statistics gathering agency.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47738 date=1078519181]
I'm also not sure how gun control is portrayed in Sweden.
[/quote]

Sweden has strict gun control. Most people cannot get a license to carry a gun to protect themselves. There are some exceptions, but I think those are all related to body guards for visiting state officials.

Very few people want a change. Guns are rare. Not that few people actually want to limit guns more. Currently hunters can get a license to have a limited number of rifles, and you can get a shooting license if you're into the olympics-style sport. And the police + military have guns.

So, we live with gun control, we're happy with gun control, and we don't want more liberal rules. Gun control isn't really "portrayed" here, it just "is".

Your a white middle to upper class person, right. So you've probably never had the cops stop you just because you "look" suspicious. That was the crime my freind went to jail for when he had a basic pocketknife that he uses to open canned food and other various things at his camp. And its great that you come up with american revolution. Thats like every black person saying you owe me this because my family was enslaved 400 years ago.And with the t.v. thing thats great that you would do the responsible thing, but most people aren't like that. They would shoot then think about the consequences. But, you have to have the sence to realize if there were less guns there would be less gun related crimes. Oh well these arguements get old everywhere you go its: Why I should or should't be able to own a gun, Whats better windows or linux, and any other stupid thing people can argue about. Oh well my wife wants some before she goes to work.
-peace

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
I've never seen a person kill another in cold blood. So I've never seen a murder, therefore I have never seen a gun used to kill another person, therefore I should think guns are wrong?
[/quote]

My point is that I'm living a happy safe life without guns. If you have never seen a gun, I'm happy for you too. That's the way life should be. No guns.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
Differences in the structure of society. You can't compare a small country like Sweden to a larger country or the world.
[/quote]

Yes, there is a difference in our society. We have gun control.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
Guns in the hands of civilians are not overkill for the reasons you stated yourself! Civilians need guns because people hell bent on hurting them have them! How many times do you see a crime in which guns were legally obtained? Not very often. You can't stop criminals from having guns!
[/quote]

You can stop criminals from having guns, as has been "proven" (as much as it can be until you see it with your own eyes) already. And apart from that, a criminal having a gun doesn't force every civilian to have one. If it did, see absurdities below.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47657 date=1078497887]
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. 1998 data.)

Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense. (Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45 (2): 263-267)

[/quote]

All those facts prove only one thing, and it is something I have never condemnd anywhere in this thread nor in my experiences. I have never, ever, said that proper training and schooling is NOT neccessary for the owners of firearms.
[/quote]

Accepting for a minute that there shouldn't be gun control, and that having a gun is a human right, let's see where that brings us...

What do you do about the people who are unable to fire a gun accurately? Should they be left to suffer? A society where everyone is required to carry a gun to protect themselves is not my idea of a good society. More like a rotten society. Not everyone can be Rambo.

Now, assuming that you are indeed Rambo as you have previously stated, why don't you enlist in the police force and protect everyone else? It should be easy for someone of your calibre...

And remember, even if someone completely lacks control, shooting shingles off your roof every friday night when they're drunk, you can't take away their gun. Having guns is a human right. Taking away their gun would mean sentencing them to a gruesome death, and no society could reasonably do that to anyone.

Also, if someone ever holds a grudge against you, all he has to do is invite you over for coffee. Once you knock on his door, you get a shot to your chest, right after which he calls the police and explains how he shot someone attempting to gain entry to his house.

And of course, there are all the previous issues that have been brought up.

Actually, the quote you have above is interesting. If a gun is 22 times more likely to be abused than to be used for self defence, I don't see how even you could argue against gun control. I didn't know it was that bad.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
Please look back on the evidence I have offered based on the studies of many criminologists. Criminologists agree that there is no evidence so far that gun control laws will have any positive effect on crime.
[/quote]

If you do not accept as evidence the situation in other countries that do have gun control laws, there can never be evidence until you yourself have gun control laws, and if you don't switch until you have such evidence, you will never reduce violence. Catch 22.

Apart from waiting for "acceptable evidence" that cannot appear, try thinking and reasoning for a while.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
This is the basic fact of the matter. Criminals will always have guns.
[/quote]

I dispute that. Please prove that after a period of 1000 years have passed since gun control laws were enforced in the USA, and all guns found in the possession of other than police and military officials have been destroyed, every criminal will still own a gun?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
You have a HUMAN RIGHT to protect the life of yourself, your family, and others.
[/quote]

You do not have a human right to own a gun. If you think owning a gun is a human right, please support the human rights movement by supplying the palestinians. USA does support human rights, right?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
You can claim all that you want that violent crime would be lowered without weapons, but there is absolutly no proof of that.
[/quote]

That does not need proof; it is obvious. Without weapons, violent crime would be lowered. Please stop trying to make absurd statements.

What it seems you are trying to claim is that gun control laws would never remove enough weapons from circulation that it would be harder for criminals to obtain guns. I can agree that for a period of time, criminals will still have guns. What will happen is that over time, the amount of guns in circulation will be reduced, and then fewer and fewer criminals will have guns. There is no magical over-night effect.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
You have to protect yourself in this day and age. You have to protect your family. You cannot depend on a miniscule minority to be able to protect the vast majority. You have to defend yourself, and a trained firearm owner can do so, and he will.
[/quote]

You think that you need a gun. You think that having a gun will allow you to protect yourself. Maybe it's a sign of your weakness, on needing something to rely on. Please comment on this post:

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47713 date=1078516019]
What I try to point out for that situation is:
[/quote]


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
These are the facts of the case, and they cannot be disputed.
[/quote]

Those lies that you are spewing out can be and are being disputed.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47763 date=1078523318]
Show me your hard evidence that gun control will lower violent crime. God forbid I'm stuck on freedom and liberty.
[/quote]

The only hard evidence that you will accept is seeing it happen in front of you. You've stated before that you don't accept the fact that it works elsewhere. Good science requires every theory to be disprovable. If the only evidence that you will accept is it happening in front of you, you should go ahead and let it happen.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47756 date=1078522493]
[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47751 date=1078522233]the reason there are so many gun crimes//accidents is because every moron in america is walking around with a gun[/quote]
Wrong. You don't have a scrap of evidence to support that.
[/quote]

You amaze me. Now tell me how taking away the guns from everyone wouldn't reduce gun accidents (and gun crimes as well)?

[quote]Your a white middle to upper class person, right[/quote]

So, you're saying that just because we beleive in owning a gun, and are Republican that we're white upper class etc? So are you saying that all liberals are black and poor?

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47790 date=1078526615]
So, you're saying that just because we beleive in owning a gun, and are Republican that we're white upper class etc? So are you saying that all liberals are black and poor?
[/quote]

I believe he was suggesting that white upper class get stopped by the police for odd reasons less often than black lower class. I believe that is true, but I don't have the statistics to back it up handy. Maybe someone else does.

Now, what are you? White upper class? Myself, I'd say I'm white middle-upper class living in a somewhat lower class neighbourhood. Of course, there aren't really any black neighbourhoods in Sweden...

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
I've never seen a person kill another in cold blood. So I've never seen a murder, therefore I have never seen a gun used to kill another person, therefore I should think guns are wrong?
[/quote]

My point is that I'm living a happy safe life without guns. If you have never seen a gun, I'm happy for you too. That's the way life should be. No guns.[/quote]
It might be the way life should be, but it isn't the way life is. As long as evil people have guns, free people should too!

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
Differences in the structure of society. You can't compare a small country like Sweden to a larger country or the world.
[/quote]

Yes, there is a difference in our society. We have gun control.[/quote]
You also have a society that is nothing like American society its not just the gun control. Saying it is is just ignorant.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
Guns in the hands of civilians are not overkill for the reasons you stated yourself! Civilians need guns because people hell bent on hurting them have them! How many times do you see a crime in which guns were legally obtained? Not very often. You can't stop criminals from having guns!
[/quote]

You can stop criminals from having guns, as has been "proven" (as much as it can be until you see it with your own eyes) already. And apart from that, a criminal having a gun doesn't force every civilian to have one. If it did, see absurdities below.
[/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47657 date=1078497887]
A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder. (Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. 1998 data.)

Guns kept in homes are 22 times more likely to be involved in unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and suicide attempts than to be involved in injuring or killing in self defense. (Kellermann AL, et al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45 (2): 263-267)

[/quote]

All those facts prove only one thing, and it is something I have never condemnd anywhere in this thread nor in my experiences. I have never, ever, said that proper training and schooling is NOT neccessary for the owners of firearms.
[/quote]

Accepting for a minute that there shouldn't be gun control, and that having a gun is a human right, let's see where that brings us...

What do you do about the people who are unable to fire a gun accurately? Should they be left to suffer? A society where everyone is required to carry a gun to protect themselves is not my idea of a good society. More like a rotten society. Not everyone can be Rambo.

Now, assuming that you are indeed Rambo as you have previously stated, why don't you enlist in the police force and protect everyone else? It should be easy for someone of your calibre...

And remember, even if someone completely lacks control, shooting shingles off your roof every friday night when they're drunk, you can't take away their gun. Having guns is a human right. Taking away their gun would mean sentencing them to a gruesome death, and no society could reasonably do that to anyone.

Also, if someone ever holds a grudge against you, all he has to do is invite you over for coffee. Once you knock on his door, you get a shot to your chest, right after which he calls the police and explains how he shot someone attempting to gain entry to his house.

And of course, there are all the previous issues that have been brought up.

Actually, the quote you have above is interesting. If a gun is 22 times more likely to be abused than to be used for self defence, I don't see how even you could argue against gun control. I didn't know it was that bad.
[/quote]
Protecting yourself is a human right. You don't seem to think it is. GUNS ARE ABUSED! NO SHIT! Does that mean that guns should be taken away? Cars are abused! Should we take cars away too? Knives are abused! Should we take knives away? Fists are misused. Should we take fists away? That whole shooting shingles off the roof bullshit just shows how ignorant you are to gun owners. Shooting somebody because they knock on your door isn't protected by law Adron. If it is accused they were attempting to force entry there will be evidence.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
This is the basic fact of the matter. Criminals will always have guns.
[/quote]

I dispute that. Please prove that after a period of 1000 years have passed since gun control laws were enforced in the USA, and all guns found in the possession of other than police and military officials have been destroyed, every criminal will still own a gun?[/quote]You and nobody else can offer me any evidence that everything would work out as you say. I prefer to be armed than take the chance.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
You have a HUMAN RIGHT to protect the life of yourself, your family, and others.
[/quote]

You do not have a human right to own a gun. If you think owning a gun is a human right, please support the human rights movement by supplying the palestinians. USA does support human rights, right?[/quote]
I have the human right to defend my life at all costs. You dispute that?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
You can claim all that you want that violent crime would be lowered without weapons, but there is absolutly no proof of that.
[/quote]

That does not need proof; it is obvious. Without weapons, violent crime would be lowered. Please stop trying to make absurd statements.

What it seems you are trying to claim is that gun control laws would never remove enough weapons from circulation that it would be harder for criminals to obtain guns. I can agree that for a period of time, criminals will still have guns. What will happen is that over time, the amount of guns in circulation will be reduced, and then fewer and fewer criminals will have guns. There is no magical over-night effect.[/quote]THAT WILL NOT WORK! DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT? You think criminals will care about the laws? You think they will discontinue the illegal production and purchasing of firearms? You can't stop it. If you think you can, you're wrong. Dead wrong.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
You have to protect yourself in this day and age. You have to protect your family. You cannot depend on a miniscule minority to be able to protect the vast majority. You have to defend yourself, and a trained firearm owner can do so, and he will.
[/quote]

You think that you need a gun. You think that having a gun will allow you to protect yourself. Maybe it's a sign of your weakness, on needing something to rely on.[/quote]Adron, I know for a fact that if somebody enters my home they have 8 rounds moving their direction at 800 mph. You think the cops will be able to stop anything that goes wrong. Welcome to real life. Come out of the liberal shell you've been hiding in. You have to fight this sort of fire you can't just talk about it and put arbitrary rules in it to stop.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
Please comment on this post:[/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=30#msg47713 date=1078516019]
What I try to point out for that situation is:
[/quote]

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47787 date=1078526176]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47739 date=1078519613]
These are the facts of the case, and they cannot be disputed.
[/quote]

Those lies that you are spewing out can be and are being disputed. [/quote]

Adron, not even you can dispute the fact that I have the human right to defend my life and the life of my family. Guns are the most successful way of doing that, so get over it. Don't tread on me.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
It might be the way life should be, but it isn't the way life is. As long as evil people have guns, free people should too!
[/quote]

It's the way life can be once you control guns. And that's a very mature standpoint you have. "As long as he gets it, I'm gonna have it toooooooo" Even if it's for the worse of everyone.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
You also have a society that is nothing like American society its not just the gun control. Saying it is is just ignorant.
[/quote]

Gun control is a large part of the relevant difference. Gun control is representative of an attitude.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
Adron, not even you can dispute the fact that I have the human right to defend my life and the life of my family. Guns are the most successful way of doing that, so get over it. Don't tread on me.
[/quote]

I already did dispute your human right of having a gun. You just keep closing your eyes and covering your ears when you get to the arguments you can't face.

I have brought up so many possible arguments, and I don't think you have even showed an attempt to counter half of them.

One simple example is the palestinian one. Do you support giving guns to every palestinian, so that he may defend himself and his family? To everyone in the world? Or is it that only you have the human right of having a gun?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
Protecting yourself is a human right. You don't seem to think it is. GUNS ARE ABUSED! NO SHIT! Does that mean that guns should be taken away? Cars are abused! Should we take cars away too? Knives are abused! Should we take knives away? Fists are misused. Should we take fists away? That whole shooting shingles off the roof bullshit just shows how ignorant you are to gun owners. Shooting somebody because they knock on your door isn't protected by law Adron. If it is accused they were attempting to force entry there will be evidence.
[/quote]

Yes, we do take knives away. Thanks for asking. We take away things whose advantages don't outweight the disadvantages. That includes guns.

The whole shooting shingles off the roof thing is something you should consider more. Yes, it is bullshit in reality, but it may follow from your statements. What I'm trying to prove is that your statements are bullshit. According to you, having a gun is a human right. You can't take away something that is a human right.

If you can take away the gun from this guy who has a tendency to drink too much on friday nights, and he can survive, then we can take the gun away from you as well, and you will survive.

You claim that you if somebody enters your home they have 8 rounds moving their direction at 800 mph. I would like to point out that shooting somebody because they knock on your door isn't protected by law Hazard.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
You and nobody else can offer me any evidence that everything would work out as you say. I prefer to be armed than take the chance.
[/quote]

It's your right to prefer. Having a gun in your pocket makes sense to any one individual. I wouldn't mind having one in my pocket. And I'm sure every criminal just loves that you want them to have guns. What you need to do is think about the whole picture.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
I have the human right to defend my life at all costs. You dispute that?
[/quote]

If you by saying that include taking preventive measures of all kinds (such as, but not limited to, allowing guns), then YES, I most definitely dispute that. Would you like to retract or limit that statement before I move onto showing you all the stupid consequences you can get from saying that everyone has a human right to defend their lives at all costs?



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
THAT WILL NOT WORK! DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT? You think criminals will care about the laws? You think they will discontinue the illegal production and purchasing of firearms? You can't stop it. If you think you can, you're wrong. Dead wrong.
[/quote]

Of course it will work. It's not very productive of you to just keep saying I'm wrong. You're talking about illegal production of firearms. Where does that come from? Are there large illegal firearms factories sitting around all over the place? Do you not think that gun use would be reduced if all guns had to come from illegal factories? What about drugs, would they be more widespread if the government sold them on the streets? Do you honestly think that the available supply of some commodity has no effect on how many people get it?



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
Adron, I know for a fact that if somebody enters my home they have 8 rounds moving their direction at 800 mph. You think the cops will be able to stop anything that goes wrong. Welcome to real life. Come out of the liberal shell you've been hiding in. You have to fight this sort of fire you can't just talk about it and put arbitrary rules in it to stop.
[/quote]

I don't claim that the cops will be able to stop everything that goes wrong.

I claim that the cops will be able to stop a reasonable part of what goes wrong. I claim that less things will go wrong. I claim that even you, rambo, can't stop everything that goes wrong.

I claim that in an encounter where a criminal has a gun pointed at you, him knowing that you have a gun that you're waiting to shoot him with makes him more likely to shoot you first.

I claim that you cannot at the same time always keep guns out of reach of children and always have them handy in case they will be needed.

I claim that if you ban guns and destroy any guns encountered, the number of guns in circulation will start decreasing and keep decreasing until it reaches a new balance. I claim that given this new lower balance, less criminals will have guns.


Your claim that somebody entering your home will have 8 rounds moving their direction at 800 mph is incorrect because: You can not pull the trigger fast enough to get 8 rounds in the air in that space at the same time. You are not always at home. You are not always awake. You do not always hold your gun.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47788 date=1078526418]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=45#msg47763 date=1078523318]
Show me your hard evidence that gun control will lower violent crime. God forbid I'm stuck on freedom and liberty.
[/quote]

The only hard evidence that you will accept is seeing it happen in front of you. You've stated before that you don't accept the fact that it works elsewhere. Good science requires every theory to be disprovable. If the only evidence that you will accept is it happening in front of you, you should go ahead and let it happen.

[/quote]

Good science also assumes you can prove your theory.

-What dream world do you live in? You can't stop criminals from having weapons. You can't. If you think you can you are wrong.

-You have proven my point about the police for me Adron. They can't be everywhere all the time. This is why people should have the means to defend themselves from armed attackers. How would you feel if your family was brutally murdered because you couldn't defend them? Would you just suck it up? I don't think so.

-Removing ones ability to protect themselves and their families is morally wrong. I don't care if its a knife or a gun. You don't have the guts to look a man in the eye who saved his family from being brutally murdered and tell him he was wrong, and you know it.

-You're saying that I can defend myself unless it involves killing the man who wants to kill me? I have the right to live, and I will defend that right at all costs. ALL people have that right.

-I have no right to fire on anybody for knocking on my door. If they force their way into my home and I give them due warning then by law I have the right to take them down before they can take me down.

-I agree that convicted criminals and the clinically insane should not have firearms. However, they attain the illegally. The lawful should not be defenseless, which is, if you had your way, how you would render them.

-I know where I live getting any number of drugs could be done in less than a half hour. Its not like its exceedingly difficult to acquire illegal substances.

-Fine, destroy the guns. You don't think more will be produced illegally?

_____

You know Adron, fertilizer can be used to make a bomb. Lets ban it so it can't be used by bad guys. You know Adron, pocket knives could be used to attack a little old lady, lets ban their sale. You know Adron, a broomstick could be used to assault a neighbor over the placement of a garbage can, lets ban the sale of brooms. You know Adron, a car could be used to run over your cheating wife and her lover, so lets ban cars. Gasoline too, that could be used to burn down the high-school bullies house.
_____

I am personally done with this entire thread. The liberal propaganda that blinds you from facts seems to be too strong for even the most empirical evidence to break. Adron, I certainly hope that your life is never threatened by an armed attacker, but if it is, I hope your good friends the cops are right next to you to take care of it. Otherwise, you're toast. Me, I'll take my personal safety into my own hands. Millions of lives are saved by civillians having firearms. If one less woman is brutally raped and murdered thanks to me and my gun, then it is all worth it. As for you Adron, Molon Lave.

For any of you others who are still open minded, check out this website, make your choice, and think about the message it is trying to send.

_____

Any research, facts, or information can be found at the NRA website, A Human Right! (The website), the US Department of Justice, the FBI website, and the Tampa Police Department factbook/website.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47802 date=1078531795]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47797 date=1078527916]
THAT WILL NOT WORK! DON'T YOU FUCKING GET IT? You think criminals will care about the laws? You think they will discontinue the illegal production and purchasing of firearms? You can't stop it. If you think you can, you're wrong. Dead wrong.
[/quote]

Of course it will work. It's not very productive of you to just keep saying I'm wrong. You're talking about illegal production of firearms. Where does that come from? Are there large illegal firearms factories sitting around all over the place? Do you not think that gun use would be reduced if all guns had to come from illegal factories? What about drugs, would they be more widespread if the government sold them on the streets? Do you honestly think that the available supply of some commodity has no effect on how many people get it?
[/quote]

Adron that is an excellent idea. Take away all the guns, give everyone nearly-free drugs.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]Good science also assumes you can prove your theory.[/quote]

This is just wrong.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47818 date=1078539772]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]Good science also assumes you can prove your theory.[/quote]

This is just wrong.
[/quote]

Okay, I theorize that I am God. Prove me wrong.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47819 date=1078540004]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47818 date=1078539772]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]Good science also assumes you can prove your theory.[/quote]

This is just wrong.
[/quote]

Okay, I theorize that I am God. Prove me wrong.
[/quote]

I am God. Therefore you must be wrong. Now, prove yourself right.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47822 date=1078540779]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47819 date=1078540004]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47818 date=1078539772]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]Good science also assumes you can prove your theory.[/quote]

This is just wrong.
[/quote]


Okay, I theorize that I am God. Prove me wrong.
[/quote]

I am God. Therefore you must be wrong. Now, prove yourself right.
[/quote]

I am God. Therefore your claim that you are God is wrong, therefore I must not be wrong. Now prove that you are the true God.

You just used science to prove me wrong. Proving that good science is done by proving things wrong. Then you followed up by asking me to prove myself right. Thank you.

Good Science isn't just done by proving something wrong. Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean that it isn't. I refuse to enter another one of these arguments with you...

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47833 date=1078542010]
Good Science isn't just done by proving something wrong. Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean that it isn't. I refuse to enter another one of these arguments with you...
[/quote]

Darn. I was relying on you to be the voice of the NRA and cowboys everywhere, to counter Adron's points with facts and logical conclusions, and generally proving his points of view wrong. He has been giving good examples, proving that gun ownership is not a human right (Palestinians), and others. It has been an interesting debate.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-What dream world do you live in? You can't stop criminals from having weapons. You can't. If you think you can you are wrong.
[/quote]

All you're saying is that I'm wrong, but you don't go into why. I suppose that means you know you're lying.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-You have proven my point about the police for me Adron. They can't be everywhere all the time. This is why people should have the means to defend themselves from armed attackers. How would you feel if your family was brutally murdered because you couldn't defend them? Would you just suck it up? I don't think so.
[/quote]

The police can't be everywhere all the time. You can't always have your gun in your hand and be ready for an attack. Neither of you are perfect. There will always be casualties. If you leave the job to the police, there will be fewer casualties. How would you feel if your family was murdered because you refused to accept gun control?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-Removing ones ability to protect themselves and their families is morally wrong. I don't care if its a knife or a gun. You don't have the guts to look a man in the eye who saved his family from being brutally murdered and tell him he was wrong, and you know it.
[/quote]

From what I have seen, such men are few and far between. Do you have the guts to walk up to a woman who has lost her children in a shooting accident and say that you support there being free guns, that her dead children is unfortunate, but if we lose a thousand children to save one person, it's worth it?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-You're saying that I can defend myself unless it involves killing the man who wants to kill me? I have the right to live, and I will defend that right at all costs. ALL people have that right.
[/quote]

I'm saying you can defend yourself, but not at all costs. One example of defending yourself at all costs could be killing one million jews because you suspected they would try to kill you. Another example of defending yourself at all costs could be allowing unsafe behaviour costing lots of lives and injuries even though the chance of that behaviour saving your life is minimal.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-I have no right to fire on anybody for knocking on my door. If they force their way into my home and I give them due warning then by law I have the right to take them down before they can take me down.
[/quote]

If that's the word of the law, it's a flawed law. Whether you gave someone warning or not before you killed him can't be proven. It's an abusable point. It's a law that should go away.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-I agree that convicted criminals and the clinically insane should not have firearms. However, they attain the illegally. The lawful should not be defenseless, which is, if you had your way, how you would render them.
[/quote]

The need for defense is not that dire. If some people can survive fine without guns, then so can you.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-I know where I live getting any number of drugs could be done in less than a half hour. Its not like its exceedingly difficult to acquire illegal substances.
[/quote]

Maybe you should tip off the police and help them be done with the drug dealers?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-Fine, destroy the guns. You don't think more will be produced illegally?
[/quote]

Yes, I believe more will be produced illegally, but not as many more.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
You know Adron, fertilizer can be used to make a bomb. Lets ban it so it can't be used by bad guys. You know Adron, pocket knives could be used to attack a little old lady, lets ban their sale. You know Adron, a broomstick could be used to assault a neighbor over the placement of a garbage can, lets ban the sale of brooms. You know Adron, a car could be used to run over your cheating wife and her lover, so lets ban cars. Gasoline too, that could be used to burn down the high-school bullies house.
[/quote]

You have to way pro's and con's for each option. Pocket knives may have to go, I don't think they're used that much. Broomsticks could go, but then you'd have to take out everything with a long handle, and anyone can create a new blunt weapon by breaking a stick from a tree. It thus serves no purpose at all. Cars are already heavily regulated. Flammable material, I'm afraid we'll have to keep. Taking away fire from humanity would be going a bit too far back.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
I am personally done with this entire thread. The liberal propaganda that blinds you from facts seems to be too strong for even the most empirical evidence to break.
[/quote]

As I have pointed out, you do not have empirical evidence for what would happen if the USA were to implement gun control laws. I have empirical evidence from a country that has gun control, my country, and this evidence is good. You just won't accept that evidence.

Implementing gun control laws in a single state is very ineffective unless you have effective border controls between that state and the surrounding states.

If empirical evidence is what you need, you should go ahead and gather that. You could set of 1000 years for testing the theory, it's nothing in the face of eternity. I would suggest trying logical agreements and reasoning first though, but you seem unable to.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
Adron, I certainly hope that your life is never threatened by an armed attacker, but if it is, I hope your good friends the cops are right next to you to take care of it. Otherwise, you're toast.
[/quote]

Well, the chances of me being threatened by an armed attacker are smaller than of you being. Even if I did have a gun, I'm not rambo. Assuming that some robber is pointing a gun at me in an alley, how big would you say my chance of pulling out a gun and shooting him before he shot me was? 10%? Reducing the probability of him having a gun sounds like a better bet to me.

And besides, you don't think I'd have a better chance just letting him run off with my wallet?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
Me, I'll take my personal safety into my own hands. Millions of lives are saved by civillians having firearms. If one less woman is brutally raped and murdered thanks to me and my gun, then it is all worth it.
[/quote]

I didn't see a statistic figure from you for how many lives are saved by civilians having firearms. I did see the figure from Arta stating that the probability was many many times higher that a gun would be used to do evil than to do good. So what you are saying is just that which I disagree with. My opinion is that saving one woman by killing a thousand isn't worth it.

It's been an interesting discussion, hope to do it again some time soon... ;)

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-What dream world do you live in? You can't stop criminals from having weapons. You can't. If you think you can you are wrong.
[/quote]

All you're saying is that I'm wrong, but you don't go into why. I suppose that means you know you're lying.[/quote]

Guns are illegal in Britain for example. Does that stop all gun crime? The answer is no. So how are you not wrong?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-You have proven my point about the police for me Adron. They can't be everywhere all the time. This is why people should have the means to defend themselves from armed attackers. How would you feel if your family was brutally murdered because you couldn't defend them? Would you just suck it up? I don't think so.
[/quote]

The police can't be everywhere all the time. You can't always have your gun in your hand and be ready for an attack. Neither of you are perfect. There will always be casualties. If you leave the job to the police, there will be fewer casualties. How would you feel if your family was murdered because you refused to accept gun control?[/quote]

Oh I get it now. You're against leveling the playing field. You improve the odds of stopping an attacker when you are armed, its as simple as that. I would note that the perpetrator almost certainly attained the gun illegally, so gun control wouldn't be a factor. I would also hope that this wouldn't happen, that my family would protect itself. Or should I just hope the cops get there on time? Right...

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-Removing ones ability to protect themselves and their families is morally wrong. I don't care if its a knife or a gun. You don't have the guts to look a man in the eye who saved his family from being brutally murdered and tell him he was wrong, and you know it.
[/quote]

From what I have seen, such men are few and far between. Do you have the guts to walk up to a woman who has lost her children in a shooting accident and say that you support there being free guns, that her dead children is unfortunate, but if we lose a thousand children to save one person, it's worth it?[/quote]

I have the guts to walk up to that woman and say that she was dead wrong in her care of the firearm, and while her childs death is tragic, one can only blame the gun owner for failing to properly care for his or her firearm.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-You're saying that I can defend myself unless it involves killing the man who wants to kill me? I have the right to live, and I will defend that right at all costs. ALL people have that right.
[/quote]

I'm saying you can defend yourself, but not at all costs. One example of defending yourself at all costs could be killing one million jews because you suspected they would try to kill you. Another example of defending yourself at all costs could be allowing unsafe behaviour costing lots of lives and injuries even though the chance of that behaviour saving your life is minimal.[/quote]
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being. An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-I have no right to fire on anybody for knocking on my door. If they force their way into my home and I give them due warning then by law I have the right to take them down before they can take me down.
[/quote]

If that's the word of the law, it's a flawed law. Whether you gave someone warning or not before you killed him can't be proven. It's an abusable point. It's a law that should go away. [/quote]
That is absurd Adron. If somebody was threatening to kill you and your family I sure hope you have the guts to take them down. The law to kill in pure self defense is a human right.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-I agree that convicted criminals and the clinically insane should not have firearms. However, they attain the illegally. The lawful should not be defenseless, which is, if you had your way, how you would render them.
[/quote]

The need for defense is not that dire. If some people can survive fine without guns, then so can you. [/quote]
In American society millions would die because of the laws you support. Live with that. Do you have the guts to walk up to the mother of a young boy murdered by an attacker and say "It's okay-- it'll work out for the best in a decade or so."? I didn't think so.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-I know where I live getting any number of drugs could be done in less than a half hour. Its not like its exceedingly difficult to acquire illegal substances.
[/quote]

Maybe you should tip off the police and help them be done with the drug dealers?[/quote]

Taking down a hand full of street dealers won't end the drug ring Adron.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
-Fine, destroy the guns. You don't think more will be produced illegally?
[/quote]

Yes, I believe more will be produced illegally, but not as many more.
[/quote]
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
You know Adron, fertilizer can be used to make a bomb. Lets ban it so it can't be used by bad guys. You know Adron, pocket knives could be used to attack a little old lady, lets ban their sale. You know Adron, a broomstick could be used to assault a neighbor over the placement of a garbage can, lets ban the sale of brooms. You know Adron, a car could be used to run over your cheating wife and her lover, so lets ban cars. Gasoline too, that could be used to burn down the high-school bullies house.
[/quote]

You have to way pro's and con's for each option. Pocket knives may have to go, I don't think they're used that much. Broomsticks could go, but then you'd have to take out everything with a long handle, and anyone can create a new blunt weapon by breaking a stick from a tree. It thus serves no purpose at all. Cars are already heavily regulated. Flammable material, I'm afraid we'll have to keep. Taking away fire from humanity would be going a bit too far back.[/quote]
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
I am personally done with this entire thread. The liberal propaganda that blinds you from facts seems to be too strong for even the most empirical evidence to break.
[/quote]

As I have pointed out, you do not have empirical evidence for what would happen if the USA were to implement gun control laws. I have empirical evidence from a country that has gun control, my country, and this evidence is good. You just won't accept that evidence.

Implementing gun control laws in a single state is very ineffective unless you have effective border controls between that state and the surrounding states.

If empirical evidence is what you need, you should go ahead and gather that. You could set of 1000 years for testing the theory, it's nothing in the face of eternity. I would suggest trying logical agreements and reasoning first though, but you seem unable to.[/quote]
There is no empirical evidence to support either side of the idea gun control would work in the United States. You can't prove to me it would work Adron. I can simply point out the ideas of professional criminologists, which I have sited multiple times.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
Adron, I certainly hope that your life is never threatened by an armed attacker, but if it is, I hope your good friends the cops are right next to you to take care of it. Otherwise, you're toast.
[/quote]

Well, the chances of me being threatened by an armed attacker are smaller than of you being. Even if I did have a gun, I'm not rambo. Assuming that some robber is pointing a gun at me in an alley, how big would you say my chance of pulling out a gun and shooting him before he shot me was? 10%? Reducing the probability of him having a gun sounds like a better bet to me.

And besides, you don't think I'd have a better chance just letting him run off with my wallet?[/quote]
This just shows how you know nothing about the rules of engagment. You can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your big screen, you can't even pull out your gun. The law clearly states that the only time you may draw and then fire a weapon is when you feel that the your life or the lives of others is in immediate and grave danger. If you don't give yourself the chance of defending yourself, you're toast.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47889 date=1078573381]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=60#msg47815 date=1078538897]
Me, I'll take my personal safety into my own hands. Millions of lives are saved by civillians having firearms. If one less woman is brutally raped and murdered thanks to me and my gun, then it is all worth it.
[/quote]

I didn't see a statistic figure from you for how many lives are saved by civilians having firearms. I did see the figure from Arta stating that the probability was many many times higher that a gun would be used to do evil than to do good. So what you are saying is just that which I disagree with. My opinion is that saving one woman by killing a thousand isn't worth it.[/quote]
Are you claiming that a woman who has a fire arm is likely to have it taken from her and used against her? If so please say so, I'll enjoy this.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Guns are illegal in Britain for example. Does that stop all gun crime? The answer is no. So how are you not wrong?
[/quote]

Sorry, I just can't let that stand. It's complete crap. Of course gun control doesn't stop all gun crime, just like murder being illegal doesn't stop all murder. Shall we legalise that too? Were guns to be completely deregulated, gun crime would probably go through the roof. It's not that people are violent by nature and would suddenly become criminals, it's just that the wide availablilty of weapons and ammunition would make it vastly easier, and far more cost-effective, for criminals to obtain them. America is the perfect illustration of this point.

Stop using the situation here as justification for your arguments, it just makes you look like an idiot. I think your argument is 90% emotive, and 10% some potentially good points, which you've reiterated over and over. This, in my view, sums up the pro-gun lobby. Some people just like having guns. I like guns. Guns are great. It would be cool to have guns and go shooting. Unfortunately, that's just not a good enough reason to have them around, no matter how many people agree with me. There are some advantages to lax gun laws, but so many more disadvantages that it's just not worth it. I'm not going to list any of them because Adron's already doing a great job of it.

PS: Actually, I'll add this:

Less people die in countries with gun control laws. I'll just say that again: less people die in countries with gun control laws. Thus, gun control is good.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Guns are illegal in Britain for example. Does that stop all gun crime? The answer is no. So how are you not wrong?
[/quote]

I am not wrong because gun crime is reduced in Britain. You cannot ever eliminate gun crime, but you can reduce it. It's not a black and white situation.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Oh I get it now. You're against leveling the playing field. You improve the odds of stopping an attacker when you are armed, its as simple as that. I would note that the perpetrator almost certainly attained the gun illegally, so gun control wouldn't be a factor. I would also hope that this wouldn't happen, that my family would protect itself. Or should I just hope the cops get there on time? Right...
[/quote]

Let's take the points here one at a time.

Part 1. You claim that the odds of stopping an attacker are greater when you're armed. I agree. My claims: The odds of the attacker being armed is also greater with lax gun control laws. The odds of the attacker killing you is also greater when you're armed. The odds of the attacker having a gun is also greater with lax gun control laws. The sum of all this is that with gun control laws, you will have a better chance of surviving the encounter.

Part 2. You claim that gun control is not a factor because most probably the perpetrator obtained his gun illegally. I claim that gun control is a factor because it affects the availability of guns. The market is flooded with guns now. When guns can no longer be legally purchased, the market will start drying up. It may take a long time before it makes a big difference, but it will eventually happen. It will happen sooner the more actively guns are hunted down and destroyed.

Summary: Guns aren't The solution. Even assuming that you always carry your gun with you, that you're handling it correct, and that you do everything you're supposed to do, guns still do badly.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
I have the guts to walk up to that woman and say that she was dead wrong in her care of the firearm, and while her childs death is tragic, one can only blame the gun owner for failing to properly care for his or her firearm.
[/quote]

One can blame the society for allowing the gun owner to have that gun. Everyone is flawed, and guns will always cause innocent casualties. You must weigh the amount of innocent casualties against the advantage a gun (doesn't) give you in an encounter with a criminal. From Arta's figures, it seems that guns are much much much more often bad than good, so the decision should be easy to make.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being.
[/quote]

What seems logic to some might not seem logic to others. You should specify more exactly what you want to include in "at all costs". Perhaps killing everyone with an income below $50000/year would reduce the chances of you getting killed in a firefight?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?
[/quote]

I'd say you have the right to use whatever means you have at your disposal, that will only damage the perpetrator at that time yes. This might include grabbing a broomstick from your cleaning closet and hitting him over the head. As you pointed out before, a broomstick is a deadly weapon.

What you do not have the right to is to have a gun. This is because guns being everywhere is causing damage to people. Just like if you were to preventively kill everyone who might be dangerous to you. Not as directly, but they are killing people.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
That is absurd Adron. If somebody was threatening to kill you and your family I sure hope you have the guts to take them down. The law to kill in pure self defense is a human right.
[/quote]

What is self defense and what is not is not an obvious thing. But let's do that discussion some other time, this one is large enough anyway.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
In American society millions would die because of the laws you support. Live with that. Do you have the guts to walk up to the mother of a young boy murdered by an attacker and say "It's okay-- it'll work out for the best in a decade or so."? I didn't think so.
[/quote]

You are probably right. It is likely that eventually millions would have died because of the laws I support. By the same time, it's likely that billions would have been saved by those same laws. So gun control is a good thing.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Taking down a hand full of street dealers won't end the drug ring Adron.
[/quote]

No. It's a step on the way though.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.
[/quote]

True. Just like a star might fall from the sky and kill them. It's all about probabilities.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.
[/quote]

Guns may be the worlds most effective means of defense, but they're an even more effective means of attack.

Consider this: If drinking sulfuric acid is the worlds most effective means of killing intestinal worms, would you suggest that as the general treatment?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
There is no empirical evidence to support either side of the idea gun control would work in the United States. You can't prove to me it would work Adron. I can simply point out the ideas of professional criminologists, which I have sited multiple times.
[/quote]

You suggested a pro-gun site as a source for such opinions. I am not surprised that you can find ideas suggesting that guns are good there. They are not expected to be objective. They may even have been bribed.

Lacking empirical evidence, what I'm looking for is logical arguments. Your own logical arguments preferably. If you have any.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
This just shows how you know nothing about the rules of engagment. You can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your big screen, you can't even pull out your gun. The law clearly states that the only time you may draw and then fire a weapon is when you feel that the your life or the lives of others is in immediate and grave danger. If you don't give yourself the chance of defending yourself, you're toast.
[/quote]

The reason your life is in danger is in most cases that the robber is afraid of you. Not having a gun will save your life, having a gun will kill you. If a robber approaches you on the street with a knife in his hand, demanding your wallet, would you give him your wallet or pull out your gun?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Are you claiming that a woman who has a fire arm is likely to have it taken from her and used against her? If so please say so, I'll enjoy this.
[/quote]

No. I'm saying that the woman who has a fire arm is likely to not treat it properly and so her having it will cause the death or injury of innocents. As per Artas statements, I'll go on to say that it is 22 times more likely that a fire arm will cause bad things than that it will cause good things.

Small note to Hazard: I thought you said you'd decided to lay down and roll over?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Oh I get it now. You're against leveling the playing field. You improve the odds of stopping an attacker when you are armed, its as simple as that. I would note that the perpetrator almost certainly attained the gun illegally, so gun control wouldn't be a factor. I would also hope that this wouldn't happen, that my family would protect itself. Or should I just hope the cops get there on time? Right...
[/quote]

Let's take the points here one at a time.

Part 1. You claim that the odds of stopping an attacker are greater when you're armed. I agree. My claims: The odds of the attacker being armed is also greater with lax gun control laws. The odds of the attacker killing you is also greater when you're armed. The odds of the attacker having a gun is also greater with lax gun control laws. The sum of all this is that with gun control laws, you will have a better chance of surviving the encounter.

Part 2. You claim that gun control is not a factor because most probably the perpetrator obtained his gun illegally. I claim that gun control is a factor because it affects the availability of guns. The market is flooded with guns now. When guns can no longer be legally purchased, the market will start drying up. It may take a long time before it makes a big difference, but it will eventually happen. It will happen sooner the more actively guns are hunted down and destroyed.[/quote]

The market for illegal weapons will grow if you outlaw guns in the US. Its that simple. What do you think the solution is? All hold hands and be friends?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
I have the guts to walk up to that woman and say that she was dead wrong in her care of the firearm, and while her childs death is tragic, one can only blame the gun owner for failing to properly care for his or her firearm.
[/quote]

One can blame the society for allowing the gun owner to have that gun. Everyone is flawed, and guns will always cause innocent casualties. You must weigh the amount of innocent casualties against the advantage a gun (doesn't) give you in an encounter with a criminal. From Arta's figures, it seems that guns are much much much more often bad than good, so the decision should be easy to make.[/quote]
Guns will cause innocent casualties. Also in the hands of criminals. I have the right to shoot at someone who shoots at me.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being.
[/quote]

What seems logic to some might not seem logic to others. You should specify more exactly what you want to include in "at all costs". Perhaps killing everyone with an income below $50000/year would reduce the chances of you getting killed in a firefight?[/quote]
If somebody shoots at me or attacks me I have the right to save my life by any means neccessary. You'd like to say that I don't? Just how ignorant to the truth about life are you?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?
[/quote]

I'd say you have the right to use whatever means you have at your disposal, that will only damage the perpetrator at that time yes. This might include grabbing a broomstick from your cleaning closet and hitting him over the head. As you pointed out before, a broomstick is a deadly weapon.

What you do not have the right to is to have a gun. This is because guns being everywhere is causing damage to people. Just like if you were to preventively kill everyone who might be dangerous to you. Not as directly, but they are killing people.[/quote]
Even though he is going to kill me, I cant kill him? HELLO ADRON. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! Survival of the fittest.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
That is absurd Adron. If somebody was threatening to kill you and your family I sure hope you have the guts to take them down. The law to kill in pure self defense is a human right.
[/quote]

What is self defense and what is not is not an obvious thing. But let's do that discussion some other time, this one is large enough anyway.[/quote]
Sure it is.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
In American society millions would die because of the laws you support. Live with that. Do you have the guts to walk up to the mother of a young boy murdered by an attacker and say "It's okay-- it'll work out for the best in a decade or so."? I didn't think so.
[/quote]

You are probably right. It is likely that eventually millions would have died because of the laws I support. By the same time, it's likely that billions would have been saved by those same laws. So gun control is a good thing.[/quote]
If you want to talk about accidental shootings lets talk about them. 1% of all shooting fatalities in the United States are by somebody shooting themselves and about another 2% are cases of mistaken identities, this is all by civilian shooters. 10% of all shooting fatalities by police are cases of mistaken identity, and 3% of police shot were shot by their OWN GUNS.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.
[/quote]

True. Just like a star might fall from the sky and kill them. It's all about probabilities.[/quote]
You're willing to risk a much more realistic situation Adron?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.
[/quote]

Guns may be the worlds most effective means of defense, but they're an even more effective means of attack.

Consider this: If drinking sulfuric acid is the worlds most effective means of killing intestinal worms, would you suggest that as the general treatment?[/quote]
You make analogies that aren't even close to the same thing Adron. It will take an armed man to stop an armed man, its that simple.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
There is no empirical evidence to support either side of the idea gun control would work in the United States. You can't prove to me it would work Adron. I can simply point out the ideas of professional criminologists, which I have sited multiple times.
[/quote]

You suggested a pro-gun site as a source for such opinions. I am not surprised that you can find ideas suggesting that guns are good there. They are not expected to be objective. They may even have been bribed.

Lacking empirical evidence, what I'm looking for is logical arguments. Your own logical arguments preferably. If you have any.[/quote]
The only evidence you and your cohorts are offering me hasn't even been sited. What do you want to bet they are from liberal organizations? Are you saying that the NRA and the FBI fudge their results to support guns? You have no logical argument. You're saying that we should change the world to a Utopian society where nobody needs guns. You're saying that nobody has the right to defend their life if it means ending the life of an attacker. Lets all hold hands and sing happpy songs!

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
This just shows how you know nothing about the rules of engagment. You can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your big screen, you can't even pull out your gun. The law clearly states that the only time you may draw and then fire a weapon is when you feel that the your life or the lives of others is in immediate and grave danger. If you don't give yourself the chance of defending yourself, you're toast.
[/quote]

The reason your life is in danger is in most cases that the robber is afraid of you. Not having a gun will save your life, having a gun will kill you. If a robber approaches you on the street with a knife in his hand, demanding your wallet, would you give him your wallet or pull out your gun?[/quote]

Gun. Shot. Dead. No wait, I'd pull out my cell phone and call the police and wait for them to come Adron!

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Are you claiming that a woman who has a fire arm is likely to have it taken from her and used against her? If so please say so, I'll enjoy this.
[/quote]

No. I'm saying that the woman who has a fire arm is likely to not treat it properly and so her having it will cause the death or injury of innocents. As per Artas statements, I'll go on to say that it is 22 times more likely that a fire arm will cause bad things than that it will cause good things.[/quote]
If a woman saves herself from being raped and murdered, how is that bad? Do you think rapists prefer their targets armed or disarmed? Women can shoot too Adron.

The fact is Adron that you are a liberal so biased against weapons from total ignorance about them that you can't accept the truth that guns are useful tools. You have absolutly no firearms experience. You were probably raised in a home where mommy and daddy condemned gun ownership and use. Form your own opinions, learn all the facts, not just your "22 times more likely" argument, then come to a rational conclusion about the need for people to defend themselves. Until then, stop wasting your time and mine as well.

Perhaps you could argue in a civilized manner instead of attacking the other person. I'm really surprised at Adron's patience in debating with somebody who is acting like a total ass.

Hmm, so since I do have firearms experience and military training, including college rifle and pistol team, is it OK for me to agree with Adron's logical and considered arguments?

I agree with some of your arguments too, but your attacks against the person rather than the arguments are so distracting that it turns me off to some parts of what you have to say.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
Let's take the points here one at a time.

Part 1. You claim that the odds of stopping an attacker are greater when you're armed. I agree. My claims: The odds of the attacker being armed is also greater with lax gun control laws. The odds of the attacker killing you is also greater when you're armed. The odds of the attacker having a gun is also greater with lax gun control laws. The sum of all this is that with gun control laws, you will have a better chance of surviving the encounter.

Part 2. You claim that gun control is not a factor because most probably the perpetrator obtained his gun illegally. I claim that gun control is a factor because it affects the availability of guns. The market is flooded with guns now. When guns can no longer be legally purchased, the market will start drying up. It may take a long time before it makes a big difference, but it will eventually happen. It will happen sooner the more actively guns are hunted down and destroyed.[/quote]

The market for illegal weapons will grow if you outlaw guns in the US. Its that simple. What do you think the solution is? All hold hands and be friends?
[/quote]

Yes, obviously the market for illegal weapons will grow at the time guns are outlawed. I'm assuming that the illegal weapons market will be the only weapons market after guns are outlawed. That's what the statements in point 2 above are about. And you completely forgot about point 1?



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
One can blame the society for allowing the gun owner to have that gun. Everyone is flawed, and guns will always cause innocent casualties. You must weigh the amount of innocent casualties against the advantage a gun (doesn't) give you in an encounter with a criminal. From Arta's figures, it seems that guns are much much much more often bad than good, so the decision should be easy to make.
[/quote]
Guns will cause innocent casualties. Also in the hands of criminals. I have the right to shoot at someone who shoots at me.
[/quote]

Yes, guns will cause innocent casualties, whether in the hands of a criminal or not. And yes, sure, shoot at someone who shoots at you. But you may not have a gun at all the other times when noone is shooting at you.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being.
[/quote]

What seems logic to some might not seem logic to others. You should specify more exactly what you want to include in "at all costs". Perhaps killing everyone with an income below $50000/year would reduce the chances of you getting killed in a firefight?[/quote]
If somebody shoots at me or attacks me I have the right to save my life by any means neccessary. You'd like to say that I don't? Just how ignorant to the truth about life are you?
[/quote]

Again, you don't have the right to save your life by any means neccessary in every possible and impossible situation. You do have the right to save your life by attacking your attacker. You do not have the right to cause unreasonable damage to other people.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?
[/quote]

I'd say you have the right to use whatever means you have at your disposal, that will only damage the perpetrator at that time yes. This might include grabbing a broomstick from your cleaning closet and hitting him over the head. As you pointed out before, a broomstick is a deadly weapon.

What you do not have the right to is to have a gun. This is because guns being everywhere is causing damage to people. Just like if you were to preventively kill everyone who might be dangerous to you. Not as directly, but they are killing people.[/quote]
Even though he is going to kill me, I cant kill him? HELLO ADRON. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! Survival of the fittest.
[/quote]

Please go back and read my statement again. Keep reading it until you get what it says. Then comment on it. I'm saving the entire quote so you can re-read it without jumping to the original topic.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
You are probably right. It is likely that eventually millions would have died because of the laws I support. By the same time, it's likely that billions would have been saved by those same laws. So gun control is a good thing.[/quote]
If you want to talk about accidental shootings lets talk about them. 1% of all shooting fatalities in the United States are by somebody shooting themselves and about another 2% are cases of mistaken identities, this is all by civilian shooters. 10% of all shooting fatalities by police are cases of mistaken identity, and 3% of police shot were shot by their OWN GUNS.
[/quote]

Where do you find these numbers?

And no, I'm not only talking about accidental shootings, I'm talking about shootings as the result of greater availability of guns.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.
[/quote]
True. Just like a star might fall from the sky and kill them. It's all about probabilities.[/quote]
You're willing to risk a much more realistic situation Adron?
[/quote]

If there was only a single gun in the world, the probability of that particular gun being used to end the life of my family would be very small. Maybe not as small as a star falling (really a meteorite, just to be precise) and killing them, but still very small. So yes, it only takes one gun, but with only one gun, the probability is tiny.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.
[/quote]

Guns may be the worlds most effective means of defense, but they're an even more effective means of attack.

Consider this: If drinking sulfuric acid is the worlds most effective means of killing intestinal worms, would you suggest that as the general treatment?[/quote]
You make analogies that aren't even close to the same thing Adron. It will take an armed man to stop an armed man, its that simple.
[/quote]

I make analogies that are extreme, to make sure you get the point of them. Your "cure" is causing more damage than it's fixing. Just because something is effective for one particular purpose you can't disregard the side-effects.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
Lacking empirical evidence, what I'm looking for is logical arguments. Your own logical arguments preferably. If you have any.[/quote]
The only evidence you and your cohorts are offering me hasn't even been sited. What do you want to bet they are from liberal organizations?
[/quote]

"sited"? Arta *did* quote his numbers with source and everything. What evidence are you referring to?

And I'm still looking for logical arguments. Not "If an attacker comes at me, he's going to be dead because I have a gun."


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
Are you saying that the NRA and the FBI fudge their results to support guns?
[/quote]

The NRA surely work the numbers to their advantage. The FBI, I don't know.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
You have no logical argument. You're saying that we should change the world to a Utopian society where nobody needs guns. You're saying that nobody has the right to defend their life if it means ending the life of an attacker. Lets all hold hands and sing happpy songs!
[/quote]

I have a very logical argument. "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

You have the right to defend your life if it means ending the life of an attacker, but not if it means hurting an innocent. Your way of defense means hurting more innocents than the people you save, and so it is prohibited.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47961 date=1078614225]
The reason your life is in danger is in most cases that the robber is afraid of you. Not having a gun will save your life, having a gun will kill you. If a robber approaches you on the street with a knife in his hand, demanding your wallet, would you give him your wallet or pull out your gun?[/quote]

Gun. Shot. Dead. No wait, I'd pull out my cell phone and call the police and wait for them to come Adron!
[/quote]

There is our rambo again, always killing the bad guys, and the bad guys can never kill him. Perhaps you'd like to wake up and face the real world some time? Can you get into your head that if he sees you reaching for a gun, he's more likely to really try to kill you than if you let him get your wallet and run off with it?

If you manage to avoid seeing the rambo point again, I'll start thinking your head's all bone and no brain. I have brought it up before, and you keep just going past it with no attention.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
If a woman saves herself from being raped and murdered, how is that bad? Do you think rapists prefer their targets armed or disarmed? Women can shoot too Adron.
[/quote]

If a woman saves herself from being raped and murdered, that's good. Most likely that's not going to happen though. How many women do you know who have saved themselves from being raped and murdered by using their guns?

Have you ever used your gun to kill another person, saving yourself from being murdered? Do you expect to, in your lifetime?



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48088 date=1078683548]
The fact is Adron that you are a liberal so biased against weapons from total ignorance about them that you can't accept the truth that guns are useful tools. You have absolutly no firearms experience. You were probably raised in a home where mommy and daddy condemned gun ownership and use. Form your own opinions, learn all the facts, not just your "22 times more likely" argument, then come to a rational conclusion about the need for people to defend themselves. Until then, stop wasting your time and mine as well.
[/quote]

I have formed my own opinions, I'm asking you for all the facts. So far you have been showering me with mostly propaganda.

My mommy and daddy never condemned nor condoned gun ownership and use. It has never been an issue, and like I said before, virtually noone wants a change.

In your country there's a different situation, a relatively large number of people do want a change. That should be enough to indicate something - people with experience of gun control laws are virtually all happy about them while people with experience of not gun control laws are some unhappy, some happy.


Edit: fixed broken quote

The needs of the many are safety and security of the masses against the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the most effective and logical source of defense. End of story.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48112 date=1078687475]
The needs of the many are safety and security of the masses against the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the most effective and logical source of defense. End of story.
[/quote]

The needs of the many are safety and security from the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the biggest source of violent death. End of story.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48114 date=1078687721]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48112 date=1078687475]
The needs of the many are safety and security of the masses against the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the most effective and logical source of defense. End of story.
[/quote]

The needs of the many are safety and security from the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the biggest source of violent death. End of story.
[/quote]
Both of those seem to be true. Something interesting I saw once (cartoon or movie) was a world where everyone carried a rifle, and if someone killed or shot someone then everyone around that person shot the person right away. Althought this could potentially cause huge problems I saw it and thought it made some sense, why would you shoot someone when everyone around you can shoot you for doing it?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48114 date=1078687721]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg48112 date=1078687475]
The needs of the many are safety and security of the masses against the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the most effective and logical source of defense. End of story.
[/quote]

The needs of the many are safety and security from the violent minority. Guns have proven time and again to be the biggest source of violent death. End of story.

[/quote]

The use of violence is a neccessary evil. Why can't you see that? If we banned firearms, a new tactic would come out. Then you would denounce that, and seek to ban it. Then when it was banned, yet another new tactic would come out, and you would denounce it... and so on and so forth. Reality check Adron.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48118 date=1078687852]
Both of those seem to be true. Something interesting I saw once (cartoon or movie) was a world where everyone carried a rifle, and if someone killed or shot someone then everyone around that person shot the person right away. Althought this could potentially cause huge problems I saw it and thought it made some sense, why would you shoot someone when everyone around you can shoot you for doing it?
[/quote]

In an ideal world, that's a great idea.

Things that cause trouble in reality:

Maniacs, who get their rifle and then some day flip out and kill as many as they can.

Accidents, walking around with lethal tools is an invitation for them.

Kids, who don't understand enough and play around with their rifles.

Isolation, where someone gets shot while noone is watching.

Drugs, where someone drinks or takes drugs and gets angry enough not to care.

Illogic, people who don't understand the logic, and try to shoot someone anyway (could also be induced by drugs etc)

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48119 date=1078687888]
The use of violence is a neccessary evil. Why can't you see that? If we banned firearms, a new tactic would come out. Then you would denounce that, and seek to ban it. Then when it was banned, yet another new tactic would come out, and you would denounce it... and so on and so forth. Reality check Adron.
[/quote]

The use of some form of violence may be a necessary evil. If you want to take the argument to that level, I'd say it's better if people get into fist fights than if they use guns. That way most likely noone will be killed before someone else can separate the fighting couple. The more effective our weapons get, the worse the outcome of fights.

And I'd appreciate if you took the time to come up with logical arguments against some of the points I brought up in my latest big post.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48118 date=1078687852]
Both of those seem to be true. Something interesting I saw once (cartoon or movie) was a world where everyone carried a rifle, and if someone killed or shot someone then everyone around that person shot the person right away. Althought this could potentially cause huge problems I saw it and thought it made some sense, why would you shoot someone when everyone around you can shoot you for doing it?
[/quote]

In an ideal world, that's a great idea.

Things that cause trouble in reality:

Maniacs, who get their rifle and then some day flip out and kill as many as they can.

Accidents, walking around with lethal tools is an invitation for them.

Kids, who don't understand enough and play around with their rifles.

Isolation, where someone gets shot while noone is watching.

Drugs, where someone drinks or takes drugs and gets angry enough not to care.

Illogic, people who don't understand the logic, and try to shoot someone anyway (could also be induced by drugs etc)

[/quote]
But look at the good side, once it happens once, the individual won't do it again :P (except the isolation I suppose)

[edit]I was also thinking along the lines of civilians overrunning the government[/edit]

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Maniacs, who get their rifle and then some day flip out and kill as many as they can.
[/quote]A rare instance at the most.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Accidents, walking around with lethal tools is an invitation for them.[/quote]Not with the appropriate training. It just shows how ignorant you are to firearms training.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Kids, who don't understand enough and play around with their rifles.[/quote]Again, appropriate firearms training and schooling, as well as the awareness of the parents.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Isolation, where someone gets shot while noone is watching.[/quote]If only they had appropriate means to defend themselves...

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Drugs, where someone drinks or takes drugs and gets angry enough not to care.[/quote]Again, appropriate training and responsibility.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Illogic, people who don't understand the logic, and try to shoot someone anyway (could also be induced by drugs etc)[/quote]Appropirate training and responsibility.

Notice that at no time did I say that appropriate training, schooling, and background checks and workups were not neccessary.

Also would Adron please outline his experience (or total lack thereof) with firearms?

I don't think that training will help if one is under the influence of a mind-altering substance.

In any case, I think that relying on everybody to be appropriately trained and responsible for just about anything has been disproved as a realistic assumption over and over throughout history more times than I can count.

Is this about keeping guns away from Adron?

The purpose is that a responsible firearms owner would not be one to engage in the abuse of illegal substances. Also, background checks refer to convictions and/or records of the abuse of alcohol as well as drugs.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48206 date=1078704131]
The purpose is that a responsible firearms owner would not be one to engage in the abuse of illegal substances. Also, background checks refer to convictions and/or records of the abuse of alcohol as well as drugs.
[/quote]

You have said that owning a gun is a human right. Having a conviction or record of abusing alcohol is not grounds for revoking a human right. You must give guns to everyone.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48165 date=1078695274]
Also would Adron please outline his experience (or total lack thereof) with firearms?
[/quote]

Virtually complete lack of experience with firearms. I've held, loaded and unloaded an automatic rifle, but never got to fire it. And I've done some air gun shooting. That's it.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Maniacs, who get their rifle and then some day flip out and kill as many as they can.
[/quote]A rare instance at the most.
[/quote]

It will happen. It has happened already, and will happen again, many times.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Accidents, walking around with lethal tools is an invitation for them.[/quote]Not with the appropriate training. It just shows how ignorant you are to firearms training.
[/quote]

This just shows how ignorant you are of accidents. If there was a way to 100% avoid accidents, do you think there would ever be accidents? What happened in Chernobyl, in Harrisburg? Don't you think they had any training? Accidents do happen, and will happen.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Kids, who don't understand enough and play around with their rifles.[/quote]Again, appropriate firearms training and schooling, as well as the awareness of the parents.
[/quote]
Same thing here - in an ideal world, perhaps, but in reality, no. Appropriate training and schooling would ensure that no kids got killed in traffic, no kids would drown in ponds, yet they do. Thinking that you can completely avoid incidents with kids and gun by training is unrealistic.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Isolation, where someone gets shot while noone is watching.[/quote]If only they had appropriate means to defend themselves...
[/quote]

That may help in a few cases, but mostly not. Having the means to defend themselves doesn't give them a 100% probability of successfully defending themselves. If they are set upon in a surprise attack, having a gun or not having a gun will make little difference. In every situation like this, the attacker has the advantage of knowing that it's going to happen now. You can't be on full alert your entire life.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Drugs, where someone drinks or takes drugs and gets angry enough not to care.[/quote]Again, appropriate training and responsibility.
[/quote]

Again, doesn't work, or people wouldn't drive a car when drunk. You can look around the forum for recent examples of people who posted about that.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48125 date=1078688310]
Illogic, people who don't understand the logic, and try to shoot someone anyway (could also be induced by drugs etc)[/quote]Appropirate training and responsibility.
[/quote]

People are irresponsible. Being irresponsible lies in the nature of humans.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48161 date=1078694920]
Notice that at no time did I say that appropriate training, schooling, and background checks and workups were not neccessary.
[/quote]

No training, schooling, background checks and workups are perfect.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=90#msg48158 date=1078694351]
But look at the good side, once it happens once, the individual won't do it again :P (except the isolation I suppose)
[/quote]

:P

Good point, but I don't think you want to shoot the kids who borrowed daddys gun to play with it ;)

I wonder if Hazard and the rest of the pro-gun lobby notice the parallel between gun ownership and arms, more specifically nuclear, proliferation?

Perhaps elevating the entire argument to an international perspective could lend an interesting perspective. Would you be happy for every nation in the world to be nuclear capable? I mean, if they're not all nuclear powers, then the ones that aren't will be vulnerable to the ones that are. Surely we should give everyone nuclear bombs so that everyone can protect themselves from everyone else?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate that. Even Bush thinks it's a bad idea!

The people with the guns think they are the morally correct ones; that everyone else are criminals or evil empires, and should be prevented from obtaining equal weaponry.

This can be done with background checks, etc. If the country comes up in background check as being a threat, no arms for them. No human rights to defend themselves.

Sounds all perfectly reasonable.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48268 date=1078713478]
The people with the guns think they are the morally correct ones; that everyone else are criminals or evil empires, and should be prevented from obtaining equal weaponry.

This can be done with background checks, etc. If the country comes up in background check as being a threat, no arms for them. No human rights to defend themselves.

Sounds all perfectly reasonable.
[/quote]

Human rights apply equally to everyone though. A convicted prisoner doesn't lose human rights. This means that every one must have a nuke, that they may use in case they feel their life is threatened in any way.

Convicted prisoners don't lose their rights? I lost mine I can't vote or own a gun...
Does that mean no nuke for me??

[quote author=crashtestdummy link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48284 date=1078715198]
Convicted prisoners don't lose their rights? I lost mine I can't vote or own a gun...
Does that mean no nuke for me??
[/quote]Convicted prisoners don't lose their human rights.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48268 date=1078713478]
The people with the guns think they are the morally correct ones; that everyone else are criminals or evil empires, and should be prevented from obtaining equal weaponry.

This can be done with background checks, etc. If the country comes up in background check as being a threat, no arms for them. No human rights to defend themselves.
[/quote]

So are you saying that America thinks they are the morally correct ones, and are not an evil empire, because they have 'the guns' and think they can control who gets guns and who doesn't?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48268 date=1078713478]
Sounds all perfectly reasonable.
[/quote]
Forgive my lack of being able to acknowledge net-sarcasm, but I hope you are joking.

Ok, I gave up reading this thread after about 5 pages, but it was beginning to repeat itself anyway.

The point is, look at other countries. I live in a reasonbly big Canadian city, where there is strong gun control. I've never seen a gun, I've never seen or heard of anybody being killed by a gun here.

We have about 20-25 murders/year here, with a population of just over a million (in the province), and I haven't heard of any being caused by a gun.

Hazard - your main (wait, your only) point is that criminals will get guns anyway, so everybody should have them. That's obviously wrong, since in places with gun control they don't. Your entire argument is built on this faulty premise.

If you can prove that there ARE a lot of gun related crimes in Canada then I will totally support your point.

And you keep bringing up the american revolution. Canada never took up arms and killed our mother country. Canada has always had strict gun control, supported by our founding fathers. And guess what? It's a safer country to live in, and there is less crime. What more is there to say about it?

My argument is that all people have the human right to protect themselves, and weapons are the most effective means of doing so.

If you can give me any specific proof that violent crime in the USA will be lowered with a gun ban then give it to me. This goes to any of you.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48302 date=1078718837]
And you keep bringing up the american revolution. Canada never took up arms and killed our mother country. Canada has always had strict gun control, supported by our founding fathers. And guess what? It's a safer country to live in, and there is less crime. What more is there to say about it?
[/quote]

But we did have to take up arms. So get over it. Its our history. Gun control works for you guys, wonderful. You all have much less to worry about as a nation than the USA. Your country is "safer" is your opinion. What more is there to say? You can't compare Canada to the US. The societies and systems are different in many many ways.

Grok, you say that all gun owners view everyone else as criminals and evil. This is not the case. Gun owners recognize the reality of the situation which is you must have means to protect yourself, since we don't have Batman to defend us. All liberals and pro-ban activists are convinced that weapons are the source of all evil and gun owners are gun-toting low-lives.

Iago said it first, heh.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48413 date=1078784577]
My argument is that all people have the human right to protect themselves, and weapons are the most effective means of doing so.
[/quote]

Now you're getting closer to something I might be able to agree with. I still think saying that you have a human right to protect yourself is a little off. You need limitations on it. But at least you didn't say "at all costs" this time.

In some cases, a gun is the most effective means of defending yourself/surviving. In other cases it's not. In some situations, having a gun gets you killed instead of saving you. And the biggest reason I see to restrict guns is the side-effects of having "freely" available guns in the society.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48413 date=1078784577]
If you can give me any specific proof that violent crime in the USA will be lowered with a gun ban then give it to me. This goes to any of you.
[/quote]

There is no certain proof other than the outcome of trying it.

But there are many logical arguments supporting that violent crime in the USA will be lowered with a gun ban. You can find many of them in this thread.

I think its great that gun owners recognize that there is no Batman.

As far as your proof that violent crime will be reduced if there are no guns, that's a silly argument. You should be saying "violent crime that results in death by gunshot will go down", which includes proof in the statement.

If all the liquid on Earth evaporated, and you still found a way to drown, I would be convinced that removing guns would not reduce violent crimes by gunshot.

Naturally you will want to say that criminals will have guns. So what about Canada, are there no criminals in Canada? No criminals anywhere else there are not guns. Is there no demand for this "most effective self defense solution"?

Pretend that there never were any guns, ever, would you still advocate creation of guns?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48413 date=1078784577]
You can't compare Canada to the US. The societies and systems are different in many many ways.
[/quote]


[img]http://www.bostondirtdogs.com/2003/images/chewbacca.lg.jpg[/img]

This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

Uh oh, nothing beats the wookie defense.

Let's also conveniently forget about the population/density difference between Canada and the United States.

I really don't have an opinion on gun control, just pointing that out.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48845 date=1078969606]
Let's also conveniently forget about the population/density difference between Canada and the United States.

I really don't have an opinion on gun control, just pointing that out.
[/quote]

Cities here are comparable to cities there.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48435 date=1078788160]
If all the liquid on Earth evaporated, and you still found a way to drown, I would be convinced that removing guns would not reduce violent crimes by gunshot.
[/quote]
Would blood filled lungs count as drowning? Or does blood count as liquid?

What about vomit?

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=120#msg48867 date=1078974528]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=105#msg48435 date=1078788160]
If all the liquid on Earth evaporated, and you still found a way to drown, I would be convinced that removing guns would not reduce violent crimes by gunshot.
[/quote]
Would blood filled lungs count as drowning? Or does blood count as liquid?
[/quote]

It would be more like pneumonia

I'm talking about a lung being punctured, and blood filling it, effectively drowning the person in their on liquid. I was implying that it was possible, just unlikely.

Well, fluid filling the lungs from the body is pneumonia, and blood is a bodily fluid.

What if you were giving somebody a blowjob and drowned on "it"? Would that be the most embarassing way to die or what? :)

wow, all this time I'm thinking that you guys are talking about Kerry, I jump right to page 9, and you're talking about blood and vomit drownings....

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=120#msg48937 date=1079029886]
wow, all this time I'm thinking that you guys are talking about Kerry, I jump right to page 9, and you're talking about blood and vomit drownings....
[/quote]

Haha yeah, I almost missed this thread, too.. I looked at page one, then I re-read once there were 8 pages.

That's rather typical for this forum, discussions flowing freely...

I led the thread off topic by accident, and when I tried to clarify what I was trying to say it just kept on going...

Once again, what I meant was that if you took away all the guns you could, it might redyce gun crimes, but there would still be guns that people hid, and this might cause them to use them more because people wouldn't have a way of defending themselves, and the cops no way of protecting others.

But, the more they use the guns, the faster they get taken away.. So it balances out a little.

That's assuming they get caught, and assuming they can get to the person holding the gun without being shot/killed.

I've skipped about four pages of reading so forgive me if this has already been said:

Adron, you make a valid point that if there are no guns, none in the hand of a law-abiding citizen and none in the hand of a criminal, then everyone is safer. However, it's incredibly unrealistic to assume that you can get rid of guns from criminals. The worst situation a criminal would encounter is that he would have to pay a higher price for his gun (supply and demand). The worst situation a law-abiding citizen would encounter is that they get rid of all their guns and are now completely defenseless.

Now, consider this. When nearly everyone has a gun on them, for example, many areas of Texas, do you think a criminal is going to take their chances at robbery? Hell no. You may argue that the criminal may just kill the person outright because of an assumption that they have a gun, but that is unrealistic to assume. I'd venture to say that 99% of the time a petty thief will not commit murder when unprovoked just to steal something. Unfortunately I don't have official statistics with me, but it is my understanding that the crime rate is extremely low for cities in Texas where most people have guns.

I was going to mention "completely defenceless", but decided not to. Here's why:

Guns are not the only weapons.
Knives are just as potent, and in a house you might be close enough to use one.
Anything can become a weapon in the hands of someone who's creative enough.
You don't even need a weapon, like with the knife situation martial arts can be a tool.
Words can sometimes be used to pursuade a criminal not to kill you, I'd hardly call that defenceless.
You think America would leave their citizens utterly defenceless? I don't think so... I mean they could even give citizens flash bangs(let your mind wander on that one...), tear gas, or smoke grenades.

Straight out of cs eh...

I got a 95lb pittbull for protection.

[quote author=Naem link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=120#msg48985 date=1079052141]
Adron, you make a valid point that if there are no guns, none in the hand of a law-abiding citizen and none in the hand of a criminal, then everyone is safer. However, it's incredibly unrealistic to assume that you can get rid of guns from criminals. The worst situation a criminal would encounter is that he would have to pay a higher price for his gun (supply and demand). The worst situation a law-abiding citizen would encounter is that they get rid of all their guns and are now completely defenseless.
[/quote]

I agree with that, and wish you'd been arguing with me instead of Hazard. That would've brought up much more interesting reasoning and rationales. I have tried to produce answers to your scenario, but Hazard hasn't really been interested in them. Yes, supply and demand is what I count on to reduce the number of guns used by criminals, but which may potentially take a long time to get effective. One advantage is that you can arrest would-be robbers if you spot them acting suspiciously before they commit a crime easier if you can get them a serious penalty for just having a gun.


[quote author=Naem link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=120#msg48985 date=1079052141]
Now, consider this. When nearly everyone has a gun on them, for example, many areas of Texas, do you think a criminal is going to take their chances at robbery? Hell no. You may argue that the criminal may just kill the person outright because of an assumption that they have a gun, but that is unrealistic to assume. I'd venture to say that 99% of the time a petty thief will not commit murder when unprovoked just to steal something. Unfortunately I don't have official statistics with me, but it is my understanding that the crime rate is extremely low for cities in Texas where most people have guns.
[/quote]

That would be an interesting statistic to confirm. It has been my impression that the crime rate is higher in the USA than here. I won't dispute the presence of guns being a deterrant, but I would be interested in how efficient it actually is.

One objection I have to the advantage of guns is that the chance of your survival in an actual encounter might well be higher if you *don't* have a gun (one of my statements to this effect is what Hazard is picking up on in his signature nowadays). A burglar getting interrupted in the act would be more likely to shoot at you if he thinks you're going to shoot him than if he thinks he can get away safely. Generally, the risk of someone getting killed is higher with guns present, once a crime is actually being committed. And that applies both to the chance for the criminal and some innocent.



This above is all about whether guns are really good in relation to premeditated crime, and how good they are, i.e. the plus side. Apart from that there's the issue of accidental shootings, people who shouldn't have guns etc, the minus side.

I was waiting for a bus in a somewhat bad neighbourhood one night last week, and I was a little scared. The bad part it, the busstop was right beside an atm. There are really two scenarios:

1) If I had had a gun and somebody tried to mug me (or whatever), it would have been a messy situation for somebody.

2) I didn't have a gun, so I hid my good bankcard in my jacket pocket and replaced it with an old de-activated bankcard. The worst that could have happened is that somebody would have forced me to prove that my bankcard was deactivated and the $15 I had on me.

I think 2) is a much cleverer and safer solution.

Hmmm, Pepper Spray comes to mind.

That's a good point, why don't people carry Pepper Spray or a Stungun instead of a handgun? They're non-lethal, and if something comes up they can debilitate the assailant long enough to get away. Admittedly, this wouldn't be the best idea if they had a gun pointed in any direction, but neither would be pulling out a gun.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49063 date=1079110115]
That's a good point, why don't people carry Pepper Spray or a Stungun instead of a handgun? They're non-lethal, and if something comes up they can debilitate the assailant long enough to get away. Admittedly, this wouldn't be the best idea if they had a gun pointed in any direction, but neither would be pulling out a gun.
[/quote]

A classic response.

The tools for self-protection can be pepper spray, blades or batons, but firearms are the most popular choice because of their effectiveness in stopping attacks. We choose firearms for the same reason the President's bodyguards choose them: they are the most effective tool for protecting innocent lives.

No other tool, be it a taser, a knife or a can of pepper spray offers as good a chance to remain un-hurt in the face of a criminal attack. Further, firearms are extremely reliable: they are a product of over seven centuries of technical evolution. --Taken from http://www.a-human-right.com

Why bet your life on a can of seasoning?

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49053 date=1079108211]
I was waiting for a bus in a somewhat bad neighbourhood one night last week, and I was a little scared. The bad part it, the busstop was right beside an atm. There are really two scenarios:

1) If I had had a gun and somebody tried to mug me (or whatever), it would have been a messy situation for somebody.

2) I didn't have a gun, so I hid my good bankcard in my jacket pocket and replaced it with an old de-activated bankcard. The worst that could have happened is that somebody would have forced me to prove that my bankcard was deactivated and the $15 I had on me.
[/quote]

Ah yes, since criminals are always reasonable there is no reason to think he would have just said "Oh, I understand." and taken your $15 and gone away.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49049 date=1079106683]
One objection I have to the advantage of guns is that the chance of your survival in an actual encounter might well be higher if you *don't* have a gun (one of my statements to this effect is what Hazard is picking up on in his signature nowadays). A burglar getting interrupted in the act would be more likely to shoot at you if he thinks you're going to shoot him than if he thinks he can get away safely. Generally, the risk of someone getting killed is higher with guns present, once a crime is actually being committed. And that applies both to the chance for the criminal and some innocent.
[/quote]

Considering over 2 million citizen lives are saved by firearms yearly in the US, I don't think your opinion is right on. My signature is there to show your complete ignorance to the situation that most of us call reality. The entire idea is to interrupt the burglar in the act, warn him, and if he makes the wrong choice, protect yourself. Your entire argument is that people don't have the right to defend themselves.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49085 date=1079122246]
Your entire argument is that people don't have the right to defend themselves.

[/quote]
I certainly don't get that impression after reading the discussion.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49085 date=1079122246]
Considering over 2 million citizen lives are saved by firearms yearly in the US, I don't think your opinion is right on. My signature is there to show your complete ignorance to the situation that most of us call reality. The entire idea is to interrupt the burglar in the act, warn him, and if he makes the wrong choice, protect yourself. Your entire argument is that people don't have the right to defend themselves.
[/quote]

You are totally and completely off.

Your argument is that when you're held at gunpoint, you should reach for your gun and let the robber kill you and run off with your wallet.

My argument is that when you're held at gunpoint you should hand over your wallet and let the robber run off with your wallet.

The difference between these two situations is that I don't have a gun and I survive. You have a gun, you die, and in both cases, the robber gets what he wanted.

Pepper spray isn't a seasoning, it's a chemical. There's a big difference.

[quote]Ah yes, since criminals are always reasonable there is no reason to think he would have just said "Oh, I understand." and taken your $15 and gone away
[/quote]
What else would he have done? He could have my wallet, there was nothing irreplacable in there. I don't see anything else he could have stolen or done to have made it better for himself.

I'm gonna have to try that pepper spray on some food later tonight.
Where did the 2 million lives saved by guns come from? Dave CHapelle was saying guns should be free and they should just charge like $5k a bullet.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49096 date=1079126157]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49085 date=1079122246]
Considering over 2 million citizen lives are saved by firearms yearly in the US, I don't think your opinion is right on. My signature is there to show your complete ignorance to the situation that most of us call reality. The entire idea is to interrupt the burglar in the act, warn him, and if he makes the wrong choice, protect yourself. Your entire argument is that people don't have the right to defend themselves.
[/quote]

You are totally and completely off.

Your argument is that when you're held at gunpoint, you should reach for your gun and let the robber kill you and run off with your wallet.

My argument is that when you're held at gunpoint you should hand over your wallet and let the robber run off with your wallet.

The difference between these two situations is that I don't have a gun and I survive. You have a gun, you die, and in both cases, the robber gets what he wanted.

[/quote]
My argument has nothing to do with being held at gun point. I'm saying that if somebody is encroaching on me in a dark alley I'd draw and if he made an attacking move I'd take him down. My argument is that if somebody forces their way into my home then they're as good as screwed. Your argument is I should just call the police and wait for them. Your argument is I should be easy prey.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49101 date=1079126928]
Pepper spray isn't a seasoning, it's a chemical. There's a big difference.[/quote]
Pepper spray won't stop somebody hell bent on killing you

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49101 date=1079126928]
[quote]Ah yes, since criminals are always reasonable there is no reason to think he would have just said "Oh, I understand." and taken your $15 and gone away
[/quote]
What else would he have done? He could have my wallet, there was nothing irreplacable in there. I don't see anything else he could have stolen or done to have made it better for himself.
[/quote]
He could just kill you couldn't he?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
My argument has nothing to do with being held at gun point. I'm saying that if somebody is encroaching on me in a dark alley I'd draw and if he made an attacking move I'd take him down. My argument is that if somebody forces their way into my home then they're as good as screwed. Your argument is I should just call the police and wait for them. Your argument is I should be easy prey.
[/quote]

Ah, such fun. So now you're in the alley, someone's sneaking in to take a leak in the shadows. You pull out your gun, he sees that, so he pulls out his gun. Pulling out a gun is obviously an attacking move, so you try to take him down, but you just wing him, and he shoots you too. Then you both bleed to death. GREAT WORK HAZARD!


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
Pepper spray won't stop somebody hell bent on killing you
[/quote]

Neither will a gun. Somebody hell bent on killing you will have his gun in his hand before you draw yours, and he will shoot and kill you before you have a chance.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
He could just kill you couldn't he?
[/quote]

Why would he kill me for being broke? He doesn't want to end up in jail for murder.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49113 date=1079131237]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
He could just kill you couldn't he?
[/quote]

Why would he kill me for being broke? He doesn't want to end up in jail for murder.
[/quote]

You're applying logic to somebody who most likely is not in a logical state of mind.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49108 date=1079129145]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
My argument has nothing to do with being held at gun point. I'm saying that if somebody is encroaching on me in a dark alley I'd draw and if he made an attacking move I'd take him down. My argument is that if somebody forces their way into my home then they're as good as screwed. Your argument is I should just call the police and wait for them. Your argument is I should be easy prey.
[/quote]

Ah, such fun. So now you're in the alley, someone's sneaking in to take a leak in the shadows. You pull out your gun, he sees that, so he pulls out his gun. Pulling out a gun is obviously an attacking move, so you try to take him down, but you just wing him, and he shoots you too. Then you both bleed to death. GREAT WORK HAZARD![/quote]

What if he isn't coming in to take a leak? What if he is coming at you with a baseball bat? Or a crobar? Or a knife? What if there are 3 of them with knives? Should I just run? Call the cops?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49108 date=1079129145]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
Pepper spray won't stop somebody hell bent on killing you
[/quote]

Neither will a gun. Somebody hell bent on killing you will have his gun in his hand before you draw yours, and he will shoot and kill you before you have a chance.
[/quote]

If they're coming at me with a weapon they'll have two in their chest and one in their head before they knew what hit them. Even if they have their weapon out, I'm not going down without a fight.

I have this to say about the original subject, John Kerry:

[img]http://dark-wire.net/hosted/users/hazard/Endorsement.jpg[/img]

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49119 date=1079134150]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49108 date=1079129145]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
My argument has nothing to do with being held at gun point. I'm saying that if somebody is encroaching on me in a dark alley I'd draw and if he made an attacking move I'd take him down. My argument is that if somebody forces their way into my home then they're as good as screwed. Your argument is I should just call the police and wait for them. Your argument is I should be easy prey.
[/quote]

Ah, such fun. So now you're in the alley, someone's sneaking in to take a leak in the shadows. You pull out your gun, he sees that, so he pulls out his gun. Pulling out a gun is obviously an attacking move, so you try to take him down, but you just wing him, and he shoots you too. Then you both bleed to death. GREAT WORK HAZARD![/quote]

What if he isn't coming in to take a leak? What if he is coming at you with a baseball bat? Or a crobar? Or a knife? What if there are 3 of them with knives? Should I just run? Call the cops?
[/quote]

Yes, how do you know if he's coming in to take a leak or not? You've just demonstrated that your way of thinking doesn't work, you'd murder an innocent man.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49119 date=1079134150]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49108 date=1079129145]
Neither will a gun. Somebody hell bent on killing you will have his gun in his hand before you draw yours, and he will shoot and kill you before you have a chance.
[/quote]

If they're coming at me with a weapon they'll have two in their chest and one in their head before they knew what hit them. Even if they have their weapon out, I'm not going down without a fight.
[/quote]

This is so stupid. Do you actually think that you are rambo?

Think!


Assume that they are coming to kill you, what are your chances of taking them down - they've prepared themselves to kill you and you're unprepared.

Now, if you assumed that you'll win the first battle (which won't happen, but still), assume that they're not coming to kill you. What are the chances of you having murdered them because you reacted instinctively?

Call me crazy, but I don't think the person would stand 100 ft from you, pull out a gun, and start running at you in clear sunlight. You have to assume worst case scenario because life isn't always so dandy, like it might be your best friend who shoots you in the back as soon as you start to walk away from him, in the middle of a forest, at night, or when you're sleeping...

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49123 date=1079137527]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49119 date=1079134150]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49108 date=1079129145]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49106 date=1079128331]
My argument has nothing to do with being held at gun point. I'm saying that if somebody is encroaching on me in a dark alley I'd draw and if he made an attacking move I'd take him down. My argument is that if somebody forces their way into my home then they're as good as screwed. Your argument is I should just call the police and wait for them. Your argument is I should be easy prey.
[/quote]

Ah, such fun. So now you're in the alley, someone's sneaking in to take a leak in the shadows. You pull out your gun, he sees that, so he pulls out his gun. Pulling out a gun is obviously an attacking move, so you try to take him down, but you just wing him, and he shoots you too. Then you both bleed to death. GREAT WORK HAZARD![/quote]

What if he isn't coming in to take a leak? What if he is coming at you with a baseball bat? Or a crobar? Or a knife? What if there are 3 of them with knives? Should I just run? Call the cops?
[/quote]

Yes, how do you know if he's coming in to take a leak or not? You've just demonstrated that your way of thinking doesn't work, you'd murder an innocent man.[/quote]

Its hard to assume that 3 men walking towards you with crobars baseball bats and knives are just out for a walk Adron.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49123 date=1079137527]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49119 date=1079134150]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=135#msg49108 date=1079129145]
Neither will a gun. Somebody hell bent on killing you will have his gun in his hand before you draw yours, and he will shoot and kill you before you have a chance.
[/quote]

If they're coming at me with a weapon they'll have two in their chest and one in their head before they knew what hit them. Even if they have their weapon out, I'm not going down without a fight.
[/quote]

This is so stupid. Do you actually think that you are rambo?

Think!


Assume that they are coming to kill you, what are your chances of taking them down - they've prepared themselves to kill you and you're unprepared.

Now, if you assumed that you'll win the first battle (which won't happen, but still), assume that they're not coming to kill you. What are the chances of you having murdered them because you reacted instinctively?
[/quote]

I'm going down fighting, its simple as that. If they are prepared to harm me, I'm not going down without a fight. I'd rather fight for my life than accept a grim fate. They are coming at me with weapons to ask directions Adron? Do you believe anything that comes out of your mind?

They're just defending themselves from your gun. It's their human right.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49166 date=1079150985]
They're just defending themselves from your gun. It's their human right.
[/quote]
No, if they were defending themselves they would be walking away from you.

Some statistics:
If you have a gun at home, it is 22 times more probably that you or some in your family will die in a firing.

When it get to a firing at home, in 2% you shoot the burglar. In 98% you shoot yourself or someone in your family or the burglar takes your gun and shoots you.

Sense moral: Self defends with a gun is a myth.

And more: There are 500 000 000 guns in American homes. Every year 500 000 of these weapons are stolen and sold to young people in the suburbs. People get scared, believe human right to defend them selves is equal to have a gun, and buy more weapons.
It is a violent spiral. You are building a society, where people are afraid of each other.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49171 date=1079152338]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49166 date=1079150985]
They're just defending themselves from your gun. It's their human right.
[/quote]
No, if they were defending themselves they would be walking away from you.
[/quote]

Wrong. Knives are best used up close. Guns have much larger range. If they walked away, they have no chance to defend themselves. You wouldn't have that gun out unless you intended to use it, so they have every right to attack you with their knives, defensively.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49188 date=1079172455]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49171 date=1079152338]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49166 date=1079150985]
They're just defending themselves from your gun. It's their human right.
[/quote]
No, if they were defending themselves they would be walking away from you.
[/quote]

Wrong. Knives are best used up close. Guns have much larger range. If they walked away, they have no chance to defend themselves. You wouldn't have that gun out unless you intended to use it, so they have every right to attack you with their knives, defensively.
[/quote]

I have never said I would shoot somebody with a knife, basball bat, crobar, etc. if they were running away from me. If they attack me I have the right to assume they intend to kill me.

Do any of you actually understand what the law says about when you can use a firearm? Because you all seem to be completely ignorant to it.

...and you seem to be ignorant to the fact that the circumstances under which you successfully use a gun to defend yourself are highly unlikely to arise. The circumstances under which you shoot yourself, someone else shoots you, you shoot someone you didn't mean to, or someone else shoots themselves are staggeringly more likely to arise.

What more needs to be said?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49188 date=1079172455]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49171 date=1079152338]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49166 date=1079150985]
They're just defending themselves from your gun. It's their human right.
[/quote]
No, if they were defending themselves they would be walking away from you.
[/quote]

Wrong. Knives are best used up close. Guns have much larger range. If they walked away, they have no chance to defend themselves. You wouldn't have that gun out unless you intended to use it, so they have every right to attack you with their knives, defensively.
[/quote]
So you're telling me that if you're in an alley, and someone feels threatened by you, they will walk TOWARDS you with a knife in self defence? I'm saying that if someone is walking towards you, they have some sort of intension that involves you. If they are wielding a weapon, you know that it is to hurt you. Now if they are just walking towards you and you pull out a gun, they will not pull out a knife and run at you in self defence, they will turn around and run their asses away.

I don't see what you'd be doing in an alley anyways.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49201 date=1079191590]
...and you seem to be ignorant to the fact that the circumstances under which you successfully use a gun to defend yourself are highly unlikely to arise. The circumstances under which you shoot yourself, someone else shoots you, you shoot someone you didn't mean to, or someone else shoots themselves are staggeringly more likely to arise.
[/quote]

So we shouldn't be prepared? The circumstances that your microwave will shortcircut and start a fire are unlikely, so we shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher to have in our home? I'm sure you have empirical evidence you can cite for me on the ideas you just put forward.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49198 date=1079187811]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49188 date=1079172455]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49171 date=1079152338]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49166 date=1079150985]
They're just defending themselves from your gun. It's their human right.
[/quote]
No, if they were defending themselves they would be walking away from you.
[/quote]

Wrong. Knives are best used up close. Guns have much larger range. If they walked away, they have no chance to defend themselves. You wouldn't have that gun out unless you intended to use it, so they have every right to attack you with their knives, defensively.
[/quote]

I have never said I would shoot somebody with a knife, basball bat, crobar, etc. if they were running away from me. If they attack me I have the right to assume they intend to kill me.

Do any of you actually understand what the law says about when you can use a firearm? Because you all seem to be completely ignorant to it.
[/quote]

The "law" is the problem. Did you know that it's illegal to own an owl, but you're allowed to own a firearm? I've never seen anybody killed by an owl, have you?

-The Buzz

Anyone who shoots themself by accident either:
1) Has no training at all
or
2) Falls into the category of "complete moron who shouldn't own a gun in the first place".

Not necessarily. You hear about drunk people or people high on drugs doing these things occasionally, for instance.

Hazard, I touch you on the shoulder to ask you for directions when your back is turned. You shoot me because you thought I was attacking you.

You obviously have no experience in being robbed. I live in a neighbourhood that's not really nice. A highschool student was dragged into a house, beaten, had a belt tied around his neck and was wiped around by it. This happened 3 blocks away from my house and it was done by a 16 year old and an 18 year old, they then called up 4 more friends to help them. After that they let him go, all they wanted was their drug money that they loaned to the person who got beat up.

If he had shot his attackers, people would not of respected him as much for killing two teenagers, if he pepper sprayed them, he would of gotten away, pepper spray hurts, really. What are you doing in a dark alley way anyway, if your trying to be safe, be smart about it, stay in well let area's and in public places or in a group.

You've never been confronted, based on your posts. I have, I've been mugged before and threatned to be beat up, I just stayed cool, didnt provoke them and if they had gotten physical, I don't know what I would of done, shooting them, aboslutely not, even if i had a gun, I maybe would just pull it out to scare them away. Pepper Spray is probably your best bet,

1. It hurts, there's lots of it, and it's easy to use.
2. When people try to rob you, they just want your wallet, not to kill you, once you give it to them, they run off without shooting anyone, it's safer.

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49222 date=1079203900]
Anyone who shoots themself by accident either:
1) Has no training at all
or
2) Falls into the category of "complete moron who shouldn't own a gun in the first place".
[/quote]

And with the current gun laws, these people are allowed to wander around with a gun. Are you saying that there isn't a problem with that?

And what if you're asleep and you think you hear somebody, then you see a shadow in your door (I'm assuming you live alone). You pull the gun and shoot, not wanting to be unsafe, then you find out you killed your mother. It can happen.

[quote author=Skywing link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49224 date=1079204058]
Not necessarily. You hear about drunk people or people high on drugs doing these things occasionally, for instance.
[/quote]

They fall into the complete and utter moron category.

How many times has someone you know been confronted by someone with a gun?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49214 date=1079200018]
So we shouldn't be prepared? The circumstances that your microwave will shortcircut and start a fire are unlikely, so we shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher to have in our home? I'm sure you have empirical evidence you can cite for me on the ideas you just put forward.
[/quote]

You should prepare, in the right way. You shouldn't buy and install a Halon gas fire extinguishing system, even though that's the most effective means for extinguishing a possible fire in your microwave, because a Halon gas system is dangerous. If you trigger it unintentionally, and someone is in the area that is covered by the Halon gas system, it may cause suffocation. You should get something that is reasonably effective in comparation to the risks it will incur.

Totally. And yes: I have cited emipirical evidence in this thread, and Mejal quoted the same statistic, but you still appear to be oblivious to it.

Emipirical is not a word, its empirical. I'm just being a smartass on you, but if you're going to use hazard's new word of the day spell it right.

[quote author=MrRaza link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49226 date=1079205658]
If he had shot his attackers, people would not of respected him as much for killing two teenagers, if he pepper sprayed them, he would of gotten away, pepper spray hurts, really. What are you doing in a dark alley way anyway, if your trying to be safe, be smart about it, stay in well let area's and in public places or in a group.[/quote]

You realize that by using pepper spray you're just opening up yourself to more violence? Yes, it hurts. It induces rage from the spray victim so you better hope to God that you hit both of them square in the eye because if you didn't you're going to be beaten to death or close to it.

Anyway, this thread has changed my mind quite a bit on guns. Hazard's weak arguments made me think: "could I come up with any better arguments?" and the answer was "not markedly so." While his arguments make sense in theory - that if three men were charging at you with knives then you'd want to shoot all three of them - the chances of that situation occuring are slim to none unless you're a cop or a drug dealer or Carrot Top.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49242 date=1079215580]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=150#msg49214 date=1079200018]
So we shouldn't be prepared? The circumstances that your microwave will shortcircut and start a fire are unlikely, so we shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher to have in our home?
[/quote]

You should prepare, in the right way. You shouldn't buy and install a Halon gas fire extinguishing system, even though that's the most effective means for extinguishing a possible fire in your microwave, because a Halon gas system is dangerous. If you trigger it unintentionally, and someone is in the area that is covered by the Halon gas system, it may cause suffocation. You should get something that is reasonably effective in comparation to the risks it will incur.
[/quote]

I'm not saying that you must have a M-16 Tri-Set submachine gun for home protection, or that you should have a belt fed .50 caliber by your front door, even though these would surely be the most effective means of stoping an intruder. If you were to trigger those unintenionally you would turn whatever you hit into swiss cheese. You could get a .20 gauge shotgun, or perhaps a .9mm handgun that is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks that will incur.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49339 date=1079273056]
I'm not saying that you must have a M-16 Tri-Set submachine gun for home protection, or that you should have a belt fed .50 caliber by your front door, even though these would surely be the most effective means of stoping an intruder. If you were to trigger those unintenionally you would turn whatever you hit into swiss cheese. You could get a .20 gauge shotgun, or perhaps a .9mm handgun that is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks that will incur.
[/quote]

Ah, good, you acknowledge that the most effective means of defense isn't necessarily the right thing.

Your previous standpoint has seemed to be that the only thing that's ok is the most effective means, no matter the risks incurred, like say:

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron.
[/quote]


The big question is: What is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks incurred?


And my standpoint is at it has been: Guns are effective for defense in certain cases, but those cases are few, and by far outweighed by all the negative things that guns bring.

I completely disagree that guns are defensive. Guns kill. Their intent is not to stop something. Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49351 date=1079282982]
I completely disagree that guns are defensive. Guns kill. Their intent is not to stop something. Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.
[/quote]

Give me an example. If somebody comes at me with a weapon I have the right to defend myself and other to the best of my ability. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49343 date=1079280412]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49339 date=1079273056]
I'm not saying that you must have a M-16 Tri-Set submachine gun for home protection, or that you should have a belt fed .50 caliber by your front door, even though these would surely be the most effective means of stoping an intruder. If you were to trigger those unintenionally you would turn whatever you hit into swiss cheese. You could get a .20 gauge shotgun, or perhaps a .9mm handgun that is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks that will incur.
[/quote]

Ah, good, you acknowledge that the most effective means of defense isn't necessarily the right thing.

Your previous standpoint has seemed to be that the only thing that's ok is the most effective means, no matter the risks incurred, like say:

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=75#msg47897 date=1078576108]
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron.
[/quote][/quote]

Guns are the most effective means of defense from armed assailents, just as a fire extinguisher to a fire.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49343 date=1079280412]
The big question is: What is reasonably effective in comparison to the risks incurred?


And my standpoint is at it has been: Guns are effective for defense in certain cases, but those cases are few, and by far outweighed by all the negative things that guns bring.
[/quote]

Guns are effective for defense of ones life or someone elses life. In a case of life or death, it is better to kill the assailent.

MY entire standpoint is the basic notion of self defense. Why should I not be allowed to protect myself to the best of my ability? The police can't be with me at all times, I have to make my safety my responsibility. A firearm is like a safety belt. Seat belts keep you safe in a car in the unlikely event the worst should happen. A firearm will keep you defended in the unlikely event that the worst should happen - your life or somebody elses is threatened. Safety and training is a must. Background chucks are a must. But if you do away with them you kill the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from armed assailents.

You keep claiming that it would reduce the avalability of weapons. I recently had a talk with the head of the Crime Scene Unit for the Tampa Police Department. I asked him how many times a violent crime involving a firearm he had invesitgated had a gun used that was obtained legally. Out of hundreds of crimes, he could count them on one hand.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49384 date=1079299106]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49351 date=1079282982]
I completely disagree that guns are defensive. Guns kill. Their intent is not to stop something. Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.
[/quote]

Give me an example. If somebody comes at me with a weapon I have the right to defend myself and other to the best of my ability. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.
[/quote]

I've said this 3 or 4 times, but it keeps getting ignored: Stupid people DO have guns. And that will never change as long as anybody can own a gun.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49393 date=1079303021]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49384 date=1079299106]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49351 date=1079282982]
I completely disagree that guns are defensive. Guns kill. Their intent is not to stop something. Their net effect might be to stop, but that is not their design.

If you honestly wished defense against an intruder, there are better ways that are equally as effective, and less harmful.
[/quote]

Give me an example. If somebody comes at me with a weapon I have the right to defend myself and other to the best of my ability. Guns don't kill people, stupid people with guns kill people.
[/quote]

I've said this 3 or 4 times, but it keeps getting ignored: Stupid people DO have guns. And that will never change as long as anybody can own a gun.
[/quote]

And I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.

As an interesting aside, the U.S. government's standing stance against drugs has proved pretty effectively that gun-bans won't work too well here. Consider: the U.S. has been in a "war on drugs" for decades trying to get rid of them, and we still have people smuggling drugs in successfully! For reasons that I haven't fully explored, the government seems to be incapable of keeping prohibited items out of the country, whether it be drugs, guns, or even people (consider how many illegal immigrants get through...). Given the failure to block the import of drugs, it seems unreasonable to expect that the government could stop the black market import of guns, since stopping more imports would require more work than they're already doing, and they clearly can't even handle their existing workload adequately. If they can't disarm the criminals, then why disarm the well trained and law abiding citizens?

I think it'd be nice if it was actually practical for people to give up personal defense and rely on the government to protect them from violence. However, as of now, that is not a realistic solution in this country.

The other factor that I don't see addressed in the posts I've read in this thread is deterrence. A variety of violent crimes are less likely in the states which permit relatively easy firearm access. The criminals can't be sure which people are armed and which are not, so they become skittish about attacking anyone. Not all of the criminals are sufficiently scared of being shot that they will avoid committing a crime, but some is better than none. This also accounts for another type of defensive gun use: the victim brandishes a weapon and the assailant surrenders or flees, rather than risk being killed trying to proceed. Again, this doesn't occur in all cases. As Adron handily pointed out, criminals who want to be armed in preparation for a crime will come prepared. So, the ones that really are prepared to kill in pursuit of their crime will come armed and will make an attempt to get the jump on the victim. However, for crimes intended to be bloodless (e.g. break in, take TV, leave), the criminal is often either under-armed or under-prepared when confronted by the citizen. Faced with a choice of surrender/flee or get shot trying to draw his/her firearm, get aimed, and get a shot off against the citizen who has prepared before interrupting the theft... :)

Finally somebody has an open view of reality.

It wouldn't be so bad if the law required waiting periods; required permanent records of gun ownership; required mandatory training that was very thorough; required secure, lockable storage for firearms; imposed sensible restrictions on the arms people can own - no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons...

Even with those kinds of restrictions, it's still just a flawed system, IMO. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it does need fixing.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49401 date=1079305352]
It wouldn't be so bad if the law required waiting periods; required permanent records of gun ownership; required mandatory training that was very thorough; required secure, lockable storage for firearms
[/quote]

I don't disagree with any of that in any way, shape, or form.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49395 date=1079303179]And I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.[/quote]

Which means they are illegally obtained. For them to be illegally obtained, they must exist and be available. Thus, stolen from gun owners. Or maybe stolen from muppets? Clearly thieves stole them and sold to people.

This means your background checks and proper training are both out the window. Gun owners cannot be trusted to prevent theft, they cannot be trained to prevent theft, and neither proposition can apply to the person who buys it eventually.

Since 2/2 of your requirements for effective gun ownership are unobtainable, will you now admit that gun ownership is bad?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49405 date=1079305970]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49395 date=1079303179]And I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.[/quote]

Which means they are illegally obtained. For them to be illegally obtained, they must exist and be available. Thus, stolen from gun owners. Or maybe stolen from muppets? Clearly thieves stole them and sold to people.

This means your background checks and proper training are both out the window. Gun owners cannot be trusted to prevent theft, they cannot be trained to prevent theft, and neither proposition can apply to the person who buys it eventually.

Since 2/2 of your requirements for effective gun ownership are unobtainable, will you now admit that gun ownership is bad?
[/quote]

Guns will still be imported from overseas. Unless of course you feel you have the right to ban weapons from the face of the Earth?

Background checks and appropriate training will help to prevent theft. With the training will come training on how to store and protect your firearms.

Now that both of your points have been shown to be invalid, would you like to admit you don't know what you're talking about?

Grok, I have noticed that you repeatedly blame guns themselves as inherently evil. Is this so?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49408 date=1079306189]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49405 date=1079305970]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49395 date=1079303179]And I have said at least a dozen times, I never said that background checks and proper training were NOT neccessary. As a side note, not just anybody can own a gun. I've said it before and I'll say it again, banning the legal sale of guns will not stop the illegal sale and if you have a brain in your head you will realize that guns used in violent crimes are almost never legally obtained.[/quote]

Which means they are illegally obtained. For them to be illegally obtained, they must exist and be available. Thus, stolen from gun owners. Or maybe stolen from muppets? Clearly thieves stole them and sold to people.

This means your background checks and proper training are both out the window. Gun owners cannot be trusted to prevent theft, they cannot be trained to prevent theft, and neither proposition can apply to the person who buys it eventually.

Since 2/2 of your requirements for effective gun ownership are unobtainable, will you now admit that gun ownership is bad?
[/quote]

Guns will still be imported from overseas. Unless of course you feel you have the right to ban weapons from the face of the Earth?

Background checks and appropriate training will help to prevent theft. With the training will come training on how to store and protect your firearms.

Now that both of your points have been shown to be invalid, would you like to admit you don't know what you're talking about?

Grok, I have noticed that you repeatedly blame guns themselves as inherently evil. Is this so?
[/quote]

Not so fast, my friend. ($1 to Corso)

Are you saying that guns obtained illegally are not from owners who had background checks (btw, what IS this background check that magically solves all problems?), and proper training?

Are guns not taken from properly trained people?

I have not said guns are inherently evil. If I have, please quote me. I did say that guns are not defensive. They are designed to kill, not protect. The net effect can sometimes be the same, but with a gun you kill someone merely to protect your wallet. I definitely would say that situation is evil.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49412 date=1079308763]

Are you saying that guns obtained illegally are not from owners who had background checks (btw, what IS this background check that magically solves all problems?), and proper training?

Are guns not taken from properly trained people?

I have not said guns are inherently evil. If I have, please quote me. I did say that guns are not defensive. They are designed to kill, not protect. The net effect can sometimes be the same, but with a gun you kill someone merely to protect your wallet. I definitely would say that situation is evil.
[/quote]

A properly trained firearms carrier would not have a problem having their weapons stolen in the first place.

No, a properly trained person deals with his or her firearm in an appropriate manner to protect from theft.

You cannot kill someone for trying to take your wallet or for trying to steal your big screen. Get this through your head! The only reason you can kill somebody is if you feel that your life or the life of somebody else is in IMMINENT and GRAVE danger. You are a moron if you think that a properly trained person would shoot somebody who is trying to run off with their stereo. Its not to protect your PROPERTY!! Its to protect your LIFE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49401 date=1079305352]no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons...

Even with those kinds of restrictions, it's still just a flawed system, IMO. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it does need fixing.[/quote]

No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous. Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.

[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49419 date=1079312609]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49401 date=1079305352]no one needs assault rifles, automatic weapons...

Even with those kinds of restrictions, it's still just a flawed system, IMO. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it does need fixing.[/quote]

No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous. Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.
[/quote]

Excellent point.

Would Adron/Arta/Grok please respond with their thoughts as to what I have written in my profile?

[quote]911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?[/quote]

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49425 date=1079314450]
[quote]911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?[/quote]

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.
[/quote]

That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49426 date=1079314717]
That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.
[/quote]

What you're saying is that you want a society where everyone has to wear their gun at all times, ready to shoot. In such a society, which is what you're having in some places now, having a gun becomes a necessity for everyone. If you don't have a gun, you'll be shot. You don't have to have such a society though.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49424 date=1079314105]
Would Adron/Arta/Grok please respond with their thoughts as to what I have written in my profile?
[/quote]

Your gun may be able to send crime-stoppers at a high speed. It will happen in an extremely limited number of cases, practically never. At the same time, the widespread distribution costs human lives continously. The choice is clear.

[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49419 date=1079312609]
No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous. Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.
[/quote]

That's an interesting point. Still, comparing the widespread use of automobiles for legitimate purposes with the use of guns for legitimate purposes, I'd say there's a pretty big difference.

Automobiles are efficient at moving people between places. I still suggest that people try other means of transportation when available. Regulations can reduce the risks of automobiles greatly. Stolen automobiles are easier to spot than stolen guns, and modern theft protection systems can greatly reduce the risk of stolen cars being used to wreak havoc.

Think about the consequences of removing automobiles, perhaps it'd be worth doing. It deserves its own thread though.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49418 date=1079312534]
You cannot kill someone for trying to take your wallet or for trying to steal your big screen. Get this through your head! The only reason you can kill somebody is if you feel that your life or the life of somebody else is in IMMINENT and GRAVE danger. You are a moron if you think that a properly trained person would shoot somebody who is trying to run off with their stereo. Its not to protect your PROPERTY!! Its to protect your LIFE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?
[/quote]

So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49431 date=1079315761]
[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49419 date=1079312609]
No one needs automobiles either, and they're very dangerous. Yet somehow they're very popular and are sold regularly.
[/quote]

That's an interesting point. Still, comparing the widespread use of automobiles for legitimate purposes with the use of guns for legitimate purposes, I'd say there's a pretty big difference.

Automobiles are efficient at moving people between places. I still suggest that people try other means of transportation when available. Regulations can reduce the risks of automobiles greatly. Stolen automobiles are easier to spot than stolen guns, and modern theft protection systems can greatly reduce the risk of stolen cars being used to wreak havoc.

Think about the consequences of removing automobiles, perhaps it'd be worth doing. It deserves its own thread though.
[/quote]

Regulations can reduce the risks of guns greatly. How will airbags reduce the risk of a stolen car plowing through a school yard and mowing over an entire 1st grade class? Guns are an efficent means of protecting life and limb, just as automobiles are efficent ways of moving people from place to place. You argue that we don't guns but we don't need planes, automobiles, busses, ets.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49432 date=1079315859]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49418 date=1079312534]
You cannot kill someone for trying to take your wallet or for trying to steal your big screen. Get this through your head! The only reason you can kill somebody is if you feel that your life or the life of somebody else is in IMMINENT and GRAVE danger. You are a moron if you think that a properly trained person would shoot somebody who is trying to run off with their stereo. Its not to protect your PROPERTY!! Its to protect your LIFE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?
[/quote]

So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?
[/quote]

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49430 date=1079315447]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49424 date=1079314105]
Would Adron/Arta/Grok please respond with their thoughts as to what I have written in my profile?
[/quote]

Your gun may be able to send crime-stoppers at a high speed. It will happen in an extremely limited number of cases, practically never. At the same time, the widespread distribution costs human lives continously. The choice is clear.
[/quote]

The chances that you will be in a car accident is not considerably high, yet you still wear a seat belt and carry a first aid kit. Your chances of getting a flat aren't very high, yet you still carry a jack, tools, and spare tire. The chances of a candle catching your drapes on fire aren't very high, yet you still have a fire extinguisher handy.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49429 date=1079315318]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49426 date=1079314717]
That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.
[/quote]

What you're saying is that you want a society where everyone has to wear their gun at all times, ready to shoot. In such a society, which is what you're having in some places now, having a gun becomes a necessity for everyone. If you don't have a gun, you'll be shot. You don't have to have such a society though.
[/quote]

You're equating gun ownership with violence. If you have a gun and you are properly trained you are able to save lives. I wish that the teachers, administrators, and resource officers had been better prepared and armed to put down such terrorism. Adron, you just don't seem to have too firm a hold on reality. As long as nearly 2% of the population acts in a malicious manner, the majority needs effective means of protecting itself. In the real world, the limited number of police and the pepper spray just wont cut it.

[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49398 date=1079304355]
As an interesting aside, the U.S. government's standing stance against drugs has proved pretty effectively that gun-bans won't work too well here. Consider: the U.S. has been in a "war on drugs" for decades trying to get rid of them, and we still have people smuggling drugs in successfully! For reasons that I haven't fully explored, the government seems to be incapable of keeping prohibited items out of the country, whether it be drugs, guns, or even people (consider how many illegal immigrants get through...). Given the failure to block the import of drugs, it seems unreasonable to expect that the government could stop the black market import of guns, since stopping more imports would require more work than they're already doing, and they clearly can't even handle their existing workload adequately. If they can't disarm the criminals, then why disarm the well trained and law abiding citizens?
[/quote]

Other countries succeed in limiting gun use. When there are less guns in circulation, criminals will have less guns. Do you not believe that current drug use is lower than it would have been if drugs were legal?



[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49398 date=1079304355]
I think it'd be nice if it was actually practical for people to give up personal defense and rely on the government to protect them from violence. However, as of now, that is not a realistic solution in this country.
[/quote]

It works in other countries. Changing from allowing guns to not allowing guns is not something that has an instant effect, but it can be done. People are people, it's not like other countries consist of aliens from mars.


[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49398 date=1079304355]
The other factor that I don't see addressed in the posts I've read in this thread is deterrence. A variety of violent crimes are less likely in the states which permit relatively easy firearm access. The criminals can't be sure which people are armed and which are not, so they become skittish about attacking anyone. Not all of the criminals are sufficiently scared of being shot that they will avoid committing a crime, but some is better than none.
[/quote]

This is a good point. I'd like to see more numbers for that, whether those crime numbers are lower than in countries that don't allow guns, or just lower than states that allow enough guns to be stolen that they're still flooding the black market with guns.


[quote author=Kp link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=165#msg49398 date=1079304355]
This also accounts for another type of defensive gun use: the victim brandishes a weapon and the assailant surrenders or flees, rather than risk being killed trying to proceed.
...
, for crimes intended to be bloodless (e.g. break in, take TV, leave), the criminal is often either under-armed or under-prepared when confronted by the citizen. Faced with a choice of surrender/flee or get shot trying to draw his/her firearm, get aimed, and get a shot off against the citizen who has prepared before interrupting the theft... :)
[/quote]

This is another one point that needs some consideration. How does waving a gun compare to just making noise? Over here, you don't need a gun to scare away a burglar intending to commit a bloodless crime. They tend to just run away if they realize someone is coming / awake. Bringing guns into the mix sounds like it'd just up the risks for everyone.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49434 date=1079316120]
Regulations can reduce the risks of guns greatly. How will airbags reduce the risk of a stolen car plowing through a school yard and mowing over an entire 1st grade class? Guns are an efficent means of protecting life and limb, just as automobiles are efficent ways of moving people from place to place. You argue that we don't guns but we don't need planes, automobiles, busses, ets.
[/quote]

I don't see the conflict here. I argue that we don't need guns. I argue that guns cause more trouble than they're worth. Do you want to argue that that is the case for planes, automobiles, buses etc? If you do, please do so, but do it in another thread. I'll be happy to present my views on it. The decision on whether guns are good or bad is not directly related to the decision on whether automobiles are good or bad. They both need consideration.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49434 date=1079316120]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49432 date=1079315859]
So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?
[/quote]

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?
[/quote]

Even if they do have a weapon, your life is not really at risk until you pull out your gun. If you hand over your wallet peacefully, you're home free. You are causing the situation you claim that you want to prevent.



[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49434 date=1079316120]
The chances that you will be in a car accident is not considerably high, yet you still wear a seat belt and carry a first aid kit. Your chances of getting a flat aren't very high, yet you still carry a jack, tools, and spare tire. The chances of a candle catching your drapes on fire aren't very high, yet you still have a fire extinguisher handy.
[/quote]

I don't have a fire extinguisher handy. I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk. I don't carry a first aid kit. I carry a jack, tools and a spare tire. The jack is used twice a year for changing tires anyway, and having it in the car is no big inconvenience. The spare tire is likely to come in handy some time, I've been in cars needing to use the spare tire three times in the last 10 years, which I'd say makes the need rather common. Having a jack and a spare tire also doesn't cause increased risks to innocent people.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49435 date=1079316270]
You're equating gun ownership with violence. If you have a gun and you are properly trained you are able to save lives. I wish that the teachers, administrators, and resource officers had been better prepared and armed to put down such terrorism. Adron, you just don't seem to have too firm a hold on reality. As long as nearly 2% of the population acts in a malicious manner, the majority needs effective means of protecting itself. In the real world, the limited number of police and the pepper spray just wont cut it.
[/quote]

Yes, I am equating guns with violence. You don't think using a gun against someone is violent?

We're surviving just fine without guns here in the real world. And it does feel good to know that some upset child won't be able to get his hands on a gun in his home.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49434 date=1079316120]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49432 date=1079315859]
So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?
[/quote]

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?
[/quote]

Even if they do have a weapon, your life is not really at risk until you pull out your gun. If you hand over your wallet peacefully, you're home free. You are causing the situation you claim that you want to prevent.
[/quote]

And if they approach me armed? I take them down. Less likely that they will take my money then kill me if they have my lead in them isn't it?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I don't have a fire extinguisher handy.[/quote]

Thats pretty foolish. You obviously don't prepare for emergencies, so I don't know why I would think you might be logical about protecting yourself.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk.[/quote]
I sure hope its to save your life. Your car does have air bags does it not? They are risky, but the rewards outweigh the risks don't they?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I don't carry a first aid kit.[/quote]
Its a shame you would not be able to help somebody in need.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I carry a jack, tools and a spare tire. The jack is used twice a year for changing tires anyway, and having it in the car is no big inconvenience. The spare tire is likely to come in handy some time, I've been in cars needing to use the spare tire three times in the last 10 years, which I'd say makes the need rather common. Having a jack and a spare tire also doesn't cause increased risks to innocent people.[/quote]

My point is you prepare for emergencies, which is the same as keeping a gun for the unlikely event of an emergency.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49438 date=1079317342]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49435 date=1079316270]
You're equating gun ownership with violence. If you have a gun and you are properly trained you are able to save lives. I wish that the teachers, administrators, and resource officers had been better prepared and armed to put down such terrorism. Adron, you just don't seem to have too firm a hold on reality. As long as nearly 2% of the population acts in a malicious manner, the majority needs effective means of protecting itself. In the real world, the limited number of police and the pepper spray just wont cut it.
[/quote]

Yes, I am equating guns with violence. You don't think using a gun against someone is violent?[/quote]

Guns are not violent. People are violent. I have never heard of a gun being left completely by itself and hurting anyone.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49438 date=1079317342]
We're surviving just fine without guns here in the real world. And it does feel good to know that some upset child won't be able to get his hands on a gun in his home.
[/quote]

Is that so? What do you think protects the borders of your country? What do you think protects your streets? In the United States which has a society completely different from yours, we have them in our homes, and we do just fine. Millions of lives are saved each year because Americans are armed. And you know what, it does feel good to know that if somebody comes into my home tonight to hurt my family, that they'll be too full of lead to have that chance.

I have an interesting statistic for you all. Adron likes to have law abiding citizens disarmed. Interestingly enough, so do 99.8% of criminals.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49426 date=1079314717]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49425 date=1079314450]
[quote]911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?[/quote]

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.
[/quote]

That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.
[/quote]

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49445 date=1079320418]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49426 date=1079314717]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49425 date=1079314450]
[quote]911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?[/quote]

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.
[/quote]

That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.
[/quote]

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.
[/quote]

Can you point out where I said that again? I must have missed it.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49447 date=1079320513]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49445 date=1079320418]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49426 date=1079314717]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49425 date=1079314450]
[quote]911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?[/quote]

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.
[/quote]

That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.
[/quote]

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.
[/quote]

Can you point out where I said that again? I must have missed it.
[/quote]

Ok, fine, some guy walking down the street who would pull a gun and fire at the shooters with dozens of kids running everywhere. That would have been a great help

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49450 date=1079321352]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49447 date=1079320513]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49445 date=1079320418]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49426 date=1079314717]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49425 date=1079314450]
[quote]911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?[/quote]

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.
[/quote]

That nearly proves my point for me iago. Where were the cops to break up all that violence? They sure did do a good job of protecting the innocent there. I only wish there had been armed citizens capable of returning fire and saving innocent lives. Trained teachers and administrators, for example.
[/quote]

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.
[/quote]

Can you point out where I said that again? I must have missed it.
[/quote]

Ok, fine, some guy walking down the street who would pull a gun and fire at the shooters with dozens of kids running everywhere. That would have been a great help
[/quote]

A trained armed citizen would have been able to aid in the situation, IMO.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49438 date=1079317342]
Yes, I am equating guns with violence. You don't think using a gun against someone is violent?
[/quote]
Guns are not violent. People are violent. I have never heard of a gun being left completely by itself and hurting anyone.
[/quote]
There we go, something no one can argue against. Adron and Grok (mostly?) have been the ones arguing against guns and how they should be destroyed, when the guns are not the problem. If guns didn't exist, people would still find ways of killing other people, and there would still be deranged maniacs out there who would kill people. Adron(?) said it, guns are not the only means of protecting yourself, which means their not the only way of harming someone, and if we abolished all guns we would still have this problem.

Personally, I'd rather be killed by a gun than a knife, freezing to death, drowning, dehydration, being boiled/cooked, eaten by an animal... the list goes on. Guns are probably the easiest way to die, it's fast and efficient, usually little suffering involved.

This is a side point, but needs to be in this topic.

Hazard, I think you really believe in your position. You're also learning to be an arguer of the position by interacting with Adron and others here. That's great. But I just want to ask you to lay off the personal attacks.

It may be frustrating to not be able to logically convey your opinion, or support it with facts relevant to your position. But the frustration is not caused by our failures to listen, to comprehend, or to live in reality.

I'm enjoying that you wish to support your view on guns, but cannot believe that even you believe you are 100% right on all points. Yet I do not see you conceding any points even when valid. I'm wanting to listen to both sides and evaluate, but it's hard when you call people moron and idiot for not being swayed by rhetoric, or facts.

Facts not in dispute are typically awarded to the presenter. In this argument, you have not disputed a great many things, nor answered many of the direct questions, nor offered support when asked. If you want specifics, go back and read, I'm not going to make a list for you.

So please, lay off the insults. If people don't understand, it's because you failed to support your viewpoint. Most of the readers here are intelligent and educated, but especially analytical.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49457 date=1079322773]
It may be frustrating to not be able to logically convey your opinion, or support it with facts relevant to your position. But the frustration is not caused by our failures to listen, to comprehend, or to live in reality.[/quote]
I'm sure it is. Maybe we can find somebody to tell us what that is like.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49457 date=1079322773]
Yet I do not see you conceding any points even when valid. [/quote]
Nor is my "opposition" if thats what you'd like to call them.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49457 date=1079322773]
I'm wanting to listen to both sides and evaluate, but it's hard when you call people moron and idiot for not being swayed by rhetoric, or facts.[/quote]
It gets frustrating when my "opposition" refuses to accept facts presented from cited sources especially when the credibility of the sources (i.e. The NRA, the FBI, the US Department of Justice) is slandered with no evidence of it whatsoever.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49438 date=1079317342]
We're surviving just fine without guns here in the real world. And it does feel good to know that some upset child won't be able to get his hands on a gun in his home.
[/quote]

Is that so? What do you think protects the borders of your country? What do you think protects your streets? In the United States which has a society completely different from yours, we have them in our homes, and we do just fine. Millions of lives are saved each year because Americans are armed. And you know what, it does feel good to know that if somebody comes into my home tonight to hurt my family, that they'll be too full of lead to have that chance.
[/quote]

Customs officers & the coastguard protect our borders. The police protect our streets. None of those people are routinely armed.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that our gun control systems work. The American way isn't the only way. I won't say that ours work better - because I'm not sure how you would define better. I would define it as serving the best interests of society, whereas I think you would define it as serving your personal interests.

Thus, in my view, heavy gun control is good. It serves the best interests of society by reducing gun circulation as a whole, and thus reducing the number of deaths caused by guns. Although gun ownership might increase personal safety - and I'm by no means convinced of that - it certainly does not promote the safety of everyone.

It's pretty common knowledge here that if you carry a knife (by which I mean a big scary stabby kind of knife) you're more likely to get stabbed than someone who doesn't. I don't see how the same doesn't apply to guns.

Our border patrol is armed, but rarely needs to touch their weapons. Most people crossing just want a better life.

The U.S. Coast Guard is quite another matter. Those boats run into smugglers daily, who are often heavily armed. It is not unheard of for smugglers to attempt to outshoot the Coast Guard cutters. They lose, but they do try. It takes a coordination of radar aircraft, land-based radar, satellite tracking, and heavily armed cutters to slow the flow of drugs.

Serving in the Coast Guard is not just about rescuing endangered fishermen.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49507 date=1079367500]
Our border patrol is armed, but rarely needs to touch their weapons. Most people crossing just want a better life.

The U.S. Coast Guard is quite another matter. Those boats run into smugglers daily, who are often heavily armed. It is not unheard of for smugglers to attempt to outshoot the Coast Guard cutters. They lose, but they do try. It takes a coordination of radar aircraft, land-based radar, satellite tracking, and heavily armed cutters to slow the flow of drugs.

Serving in the Coast Guard is not just about rescuing endangered fishermen.
[/quote]

If the smugglers didn't have guns, the coastguard wouldn't need them either :D

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49456 date=1079322386]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
Guns are not violent. People are violent. I have never heard of a gun being left completely by itself and hurting anyone.
[/quote]
There we go, something no one can argue against. Adron and Grok (mostly?) have been the ones arguing against guns and how they should be destroyed, when the guns are not the problem. If guns didn't exist, people would still find ways of killing other people, and there would still be deranged maniacs out there who would kill people. Adron(?) said it, guns are not the only means of protecting yourself, which means their not the only way of harming someone, and if we abolished all guns we would still have this problem.
[/quote]

If guns didn't exist, people would still find ways of killing other people, yes. The idea is that without guns they would be less successful, and it would be happening on a smaller scale. Guns are tools for harming people more efficiently.

Obviously, if a gun is left with noone around to hurt, it can't hurt anyone. Maybe you'd like to suggest that we make humankind extinct, so that no more humans will be hurt? I'll still call guns violent because their main operation, the way they are designed to work, is violent; marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity. The firing of a gun has to be a very good example of violent.


[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49456 date=1079322386]
Personally, I'd rather be killed by a gun than a knife, freezing to death, drowning, dehydration, being boiled/cooked, eaten by an animal... the list goes on. Guns are probably the easiest way to die, it's fast and efficient, usually little suffering involved.
[/quote]

Many people do survive gunshots. A bullet to the head is probably pretty ok, but I don't think you'd appreciate a bullet in your stomach. I'm not convinced that there's really "usually little suffering involved".

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49458 date=1079323415]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49457 date=1079322773]
Yet I do not see you conceding any points even when valid. [/quote]
Nor is my "opposition" if thats what you'd like to call them.
[/quote]

That has more to do with you not bringing up all that many clearly valid points - most all seem to easy to dispute logically.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49458 date=1079323415]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49457 date=1079322773]
I'm wanting to listen to both sides and evaluate, but it's hard when you call people moron and idiot for not being swayed by rhetoric, or facts.[/quote]
It gets frustrating when my "opposition" refuses to accept facts presented from cited sources especially when the credibility of the sources (i.e. The NRA, the FBI, the US Department of Justice) is slandered with no evidence of it whatsoever.
[/quote]

The NRA is a lobbyist organization; such are known to work the numbers to their advantage as much as they can. Results from the FBI or the Department of Justice are not as likely to be constructed, but they have to be read and interpreted in their entirety. I did look at one paper which suggested that they were classifying deaths by gunshot in a way that makes them unusable for arguing for or against guns. Apparently, they combine into the same numbers, people intentionally killed by criminals and accidental or similar shootings that would not have happened if guns were properly locked away (or banned).

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
Is that so? What do you think protects the borders of your country? What do you think protects your streets? In the United States which has a society completely different from yours, we have them in our homes, and we do just fine.
[/quote]

In the United States, you have them in your homes, and it's costing you dearly. In my country, the people who need them have them, and they're using them well.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
Millions of lives are saved each year because Americans are armed.
[/quote]

Please explain how you reach "Millions of lives".


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
I have an interesting statistic for you all. Adron likes to have law abiding citizens disarmed. Interestingly enough, so do 99.8% of criminals.
[/quote]

What is the source for the number 99.8%?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49441 date=1079318049]
And you know what, it does feel good to know that if somebody comes into my home tonight to hurt my family, that they'll be too full of lead to have that chance.
[/quote]

You cannot possibly know that. You are making invalid assumptions, and those color and render your entire argument near worthless.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49434 date=1079316120]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49432 date=1079315859]
So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?
[/quote]

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?
[/quote]

Even if they do have a weapon, your life is not really at risk until you pull out your gun. If you hand over your wallet peacefully, you're home free. You are causing the situation you claim that you want to prevent.
[/quote]

And if they approach me armed? I take them down. Less likely that they will take my money then kill me if they have my lead in them isn't it?
[/quote]

More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I don't have a fire extinguisher handy.[/quote]

Thats pretty foolish. You obviously don't prepare for emergencies, so I don't know why I would think you might be logical about protecting yourself.
[/quote]

Most people I know don't have fire extinguishers handy. Fire extinguishers are overrated, and require regular maintenance to be effective. I am well protected without a fire extinguisher.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk.[/quote]
I sure hope its to save your life. Your car does have air bags does it not? They are risky, but the rewards outweigh the risks don't they?
[/quote]

No, my car doesn't have air bags.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I don't carry a first aid kit.[/quote]
Its a shame you would not be able to help somebody in need.
[/quote]

Well, since we've been insightful enough to ban guns, the risk of needing that is lessened here.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
My point is you prepare for emergencies, which is the same as keeping a gun for the unlikely event of an emergency.
[/quote]

My point is that you prepare for some emergencies. What you do in preparation for emergencies must be reasonable and the cost of doing it must be low enough that it is outweighed by the benefits, which is obviously the case for carrying a spare tire or using a seatbelt but not for carrying a gun.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49434 date=1079316120]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=180#msg49432 date=1079315859]
So this is to understand that is someone steps up to you on the street to rob you of your wallet, you'll give your wallet away instead of trying to use your gun?
[/quote]

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?
[/quote]

Even if they do have a weapon, your life is not really at risk until you pull out your gun. If you hand over your wallet peacefully, you're home free. You are causing the situation you claim that you want to prevent.
[/quote]

And if they approach me armed? I take them down. Less likely that they will take my money then kill me if they have my lead in them isn't it?
[/quote]

More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.[/quote]
I'd like to have the chance to save my life rather than let them rob me and kill me anyway. Very likely I would shoot them to kill them if I had to. Highly likely I would take them down. They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed. Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I don't have a fire extinguisher handy.[/quote]

Thats pretty foolish. You obviously don't prepare for emergencies, so I don't know why I would think you might be logical about protecting yourself.
[/quote]

Most people I know don't have fire extinguishers handy. Fire extinguishers are overrated, and require regular maintenance to be effective. I am well protected without a fire extinguisher.[/quote]
Having a fire extinguisher to put out a small fire say in your trash can can save your property from more costly damage.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49437 date=1079317062]
I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk.[/quote]
I sure hope its to save your life. Your car does have air bags does it not? They are risky, but the rewards outweigh the risks don't they?
[/quote]

No, my car doesn't have air bags.[/quote]

Wtf?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49440 date=1079317891]
My point is you prepare for emergencies, which is the same as keeping a gun for the unlikely event of an emergency.
[/quote]

My point is that you prepare for some emergencies. What you do in preparation for emergencies must be reasonable and the cost of doing it must be low enough that it is outweighed by the benefits, which is obviously the case for carrying a spare tire or using a seatbelt but not for carrying a gun.
[/quote]

You must prepare for all emergencies.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
You must prepare for all emergencies.
[/quote]
Right.

"Without a gun, the king of England could march in here right now and boss you around. Do you want that? Hey? Do you?"
"No...."
"All right then. The gun stays."

-Simpsons.

There's a simpsons quote to solve every arguement/problem.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.[/quote]
I'd like to have the chance to save my life rather than let them rob me and kill me anyway. Very likely I would shoot them to kill them if I had to. Highly likely I would take them down.
[/quote]

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?
[/quote]

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
Most people I know don't have fire extinguishers handy. Fire extinguishers are overrated, and require regular maintenance to be effective. I am well protected without a fire extinguisher.[/quote]
Having a fire extinguisher to put out a small fire say in your trash can can save your property from more costly damage.
[/quote]

Yes, it can. Just picking up the trash can and throwing it out the window can too. Or not throwing burning/glowing/hot material into the trash can in the first place. In some cases a fire extinguisher could be handy, but in most cases it'll work out fine anyway. Fire extinguishers are overrated.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
No, my car doesn't have air bags.[/quote]

Wtf?
[/quote]

Umm, it doesn't, plain and simple?

I'm going to touch the original topic of this thread a little more.

[img]http://www.cold-chaos.net/hitmen/kerry.jpg[/img]

OK, I'm done.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49550 date=1079378619]
More likely that they will attempt to kill you if you attempt to put your lead in them. Unlikely that you can put your lead in them. Highly likely that you will be taken down.[/quote]
I'd like to have the chance to save my life rather than let them rob me and kill me anyway. Very likely I would shoot them to kill them if I had to. Highly likely I would take them down.
[/quote]

If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.[/quote]

Not true.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?
[/quote]

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience? [/quote]

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49667 date=1079407648]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.[/quote]

Not true.
[/quote]

Not true, why? Apply some logic to the situation and tell me why a robber wants to kill you unless you prove to be troublesome or dangerous?


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49667 date=1079407648]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?
[/quote]

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience? [/quote]

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.
[/quote]

There's no situation that the right logic doesn't apply to. Logic is universal. Why would a robber have any interest in killing you unless it turned out to be necessary for his own safety? Shouldn't you rather call him a murderer if he walks into the encounter, already having decided to kill you?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49672 date=1079409484]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49667 date=1079407648]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.[/quote]

Not true.
[/quote]

Not true, why? Apply some logic to the situation and tell me why a robber wants to kill you unless you prove to be troublesome or dangerous?[/quote]

Adron you're cursed. By applying logic to illogical situations. You're applying rationale to an irrational being, somebody driven to violent crime. A mentally diseased person may just kill you, for no particular reason. If your attacker is panicky, he might either kill you to keep you from saying anything, or he just goes over the edge.


[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49672 date=1079409484]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49667 date=1079407648]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?
[/quote]

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience? [/quote]

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.
[/quote]

There's no situation that the right logic doesn't apply to. Logic is universal. Why would a robber have any interest in killing you unless it turned out to be necessary for his own safety? Shouldn't you rather call him a murderer if he walks into the encounter, already having decided to kill you?
[/quote]

Logic is not a universal value. An irrational person such as a crazed attacker will not consider logic. What about love? Is love logical? If so, how do you define love, since you know the logic you can define it for me right? If somebody walks into an encounter with the intent to kill then its premeditated murder.

Adron if everything was logical then somebody would have defined the meaning of life and existence by now. Its not as simple as that.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=195#msg49456 date=1079322386]
Personally, I'd rather be killed by a gun than a knife, freezing to death, drowning, dehydration, being boiled/cooked, eaten by an animal... the list goes on. Guns are probably the easiest way to die, it's fast and efficient, usually little suffering involved.
[/quote]

Many people do survive gunshots. A bullet to the head is probably pretty ok, but I don't think you'd appreciate a bullet in your stomach. I'm not convinced that there's really "usually little suffering involved".

[quote][/quote]

Precisely why we are trained to fire twice to the chest (center mass) and once to the head. If they aren't dead, they aren't going anywhere.

Yes, love is logical. If you want proof, I can send you a PDF book "How to make anyone fall in love with you". The book includes extensive references to research done in the last 20 years proving that love can be created, manufactured, and the subjects be none the wiser.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49849 date=1079468554]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49672 date=1079409484]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49667 date=1079407648]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
If they're there to rob you, they don't have any interest in killing you unless you pose a threat to them. That is, if you don't have a gun. It's not likely you would take them down if they jump you and surprise you.[/quote]

Not true.
[/quote]

Not true, why? Apply some logic to the situation and tell me why a robber wants to kill you unless you prove to be troublesome or dangerous?[/quote]

Adron you're cursed. By applying logic to illogical situations. You're applying rationale to an irrational being, somebody driven to violent crime. A mentally diseased person may just kill you, for no particular reason. If your attacker is panicky, he might either kill you to keep you from saying anything, or he just goes over the edge.
[/quote]

That's still logical. A mentally diseased person may just be able to get a gun because of the free gun availability, then see how much more damage he can do than if guns had been limited. And if your attacker is panicky, it will not get better if he thinks you have a gun that you're about to use on him.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49849 date=1079468554]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49672 date=1079409484]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49667 date=1079407648]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49591 date=1079388104]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49574 date=1079384562]
They wouldn't risk attacking somebody who is armed.
Are you basing this on your personal experience? Then with all do respect, how would you know?
[/quote]

No, I'm basing this on logical reasoning. Are you basing it on personal experience? [/quote]

Once again you apply logic to an irrational situation. Second hand knowlege from crime scene investigators, no not the TV show.
[/quote]

There's no situation that the right logic doesn't apply to. Logic is universal. Why would a robber have any interest in killing you unless it turned out to be necessary for his own safety? Shouldn't you rather call him a murderer if he walks into the encounter, already having decided to kill you?
[/quote]

Logic is not a universal value. An irrational person such as a crazed attacker will not consider logic. What about love? Is love logical? If so, how do you define love, since you know the logic you can define it for me right? If somebody walks into an encounter with the intent to kill then its premeditated murder.

Adron if everything was logical then somebody would have defined the meaning of life and existence by now. Its not as simple as that.
[/quote]

Everything is indeed logical. When it seems illogical it's either incorrect or we don't fully understand it. I can't fully define love, but that doesn't mean it's not logical. One logical reason for love is to encourage reproduction in our species.

My logic tells me that our existence has no higher purpose. Logically, with the huge amount of randomness available, eventually some form of intelligent life will appear just out of pure chance.


[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49849 date=1079468554]
Precisely why we are trained to fire twice to the chest (center mass) and once to the head. If they aren't dead, they aren't going anywhere.
[/quote]

But which still doesn't mean that you can either A) kill someone you shouldn't have killed (too bad that you were such an efficient killer) or B) fail to kill someone you should've killed, because of stress, bad aim, you getting shot first, etc.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49901 date=1079475530]My logic tells me that our existence has no higher purpose. Logically, with the huge amount of randomness available, eventually some form of intelligent life will appear just out of pure chance.[/quote]

On what do you base that assertion? You're not even suggesting there's a chance of intelligent life, you're saying it will happen. Clarify?

10,000 monkeys pounding away at typewriters for 10,000 years will not produce the combined works of Shaekespeare. MIT proved this by experiment recently. N monkeys at keyboards for N weeks failed to produce a single line of coherent writing. "By pure chance" they should have.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg49904 date=1079475797]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49901 date=1079475530]My logic tells me that our existence has no higher purpose. Logically, with the huge amount of randomness available, eventually some form of intelligent life will appear just out of pure chance.[/quote]

On what do you base that assertion? You're not even suggesting there's a chance of intelligent life, you're saying it will happen. Clarify?
[/quote]

I'm basing that on the assumption that what we call time will actually go on infinitely, and that as it does so, everything that can happen will happen. Since intelligent life obviously can happen, it will.


[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg49904 date=1079475797]
10,000 monkeys pounding away at typewriters for 10,000 years will not produce the combined works of Shaekespeare. MIT proved this by experiment recently. N monkeys at keyboards for N weeks failed to produce a single line of coherent writing. "By pure chance" they should have.
[/quote]

10000 monkeys for 10000 years is probably just not infinite enough. Also, in any test of something random that only runs for a limited time, chance can cause it to fail. What you get by running something a certain time is a probability that something will happen.

A line of 80 characters from a 102 key keyboard would mean 4,875e+160 possible combinations. If a few million of those are coherent writing, then a monkey has about one chance in 1e-154 to produce a line of coherent writing. If a monkey types one character per second, the chance of 10000 monkeys producing a line of coherent writing in 10000 years would be about one in 3e-139. With those odds, you can't expect them to produce shakespeares combined works. You need to give them more time to work with.

So when you say "eventually some form of intelligent life will appear", you implied an infinitely sufficient limit. If you were estimating how long is sufficient, in the same way you estimated with the monkeys, what would it be for intelligent life?

So wait, you mean you've come up with a way to explain the existence or the non-existence of God through logic? Please share it with us Adron.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg49928 date=1079480904]
So when you say "eventually some form of intelligent life will appear", you implied an infinitely sufficient limit. If you were estimating how long is sufficient, in the same way you estimated with the monkeys, what would it be for intelligent life?
[/quote]

I can't answer that because I don't have enough data to make any reasonable estimate of the number. I don't even have enough data to estimate how long is sufficient for any form of "life" to develop. I'm sure that others have estimated the probability of life though.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg49952 date=1079487684]
So wait, you mean you've come up with a way to explain the existence or the non-existence of God through logic? Please share it with us Adron.
[/quote]

No, I haven't come up with a way to explain the existence or non-existence of God. The existence of God isn't required, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It somewhat depends on what you put into "God" too.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49901 date=1079475530]
Everything is indeed logical. [/quote]

If this were true, why can't you logically explain to me the existence or non-existence of God?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50102 date=1079556532]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=210#msg49901 date=1079475530]
Everything is indeed logical. [/quote]

If this were true, why can't you logically explain to me the existence or non-existence of God?
[/quote]

Because I don't have enough data.

So you don't actually know that everything is logical, its really just your opinion?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50135 date=1079560228]
So you don't actually know that everything is logical, its really just your opinion?
[/quote]

Put it this way: Not every statement is logical, but every correct statement is logical. Some wrong statements aren't logical and can then be easily spotted. Correct statements are logical, but may not seem logical until you understand them.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50147 date=1079564662]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50135 date=1079560228]
So you don't actually know that everything is logical, its really just your opinion?
[/quote]

Put it this way: Not every statement is logical, but every correct statement is logical. Some wrong statements aren't logical and can then be easily spotted. Correct statements are logical, but may not seem logical until you understand them.

[/quote]

Not everything can be logically explained, but that doesn't make them wrong.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50149 date=1079566222]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50147 date=1079564662]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50135 date=1079560228]
So you don't actually know that everything is logical, its really just your opinion?
[/quote]

Put it this way: Not every statement is logical, but every correct statement is logical. Some wrong statements aren't logical and can then be easily spotted. Correct statements are logical, but may not seem logical until you understand them.

[/quote]

Not everything can be logically explained, but that doesn't make them wrong.
[/quote]

Examplify please?

I'm just wondering not that this has anything to do with the topic but, Adron do you believe in God?

You base a lot of your assumptions on logic (not saying it's a bad thing).

(Since there really is no proof that God does exist)

You cant logically explain such a thing as the existence of God for example. People have been trying for centuries to no avail.

[quote author=SNiFFeR link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50160 date=1079568095]
I'm just wondering not that this has anything to do with the topic but, Adron do you believe in God?

You base a lot of your assumptions on logic (not saying it's a bad thing).

(Since there really is no proof that God does exist)
[/quote]

No, I don't believe in God in the way believers should. I don't believe in the existence of God. I believe that "God" is a tool people use to help them get through life - to encourage, to scare, to explain.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50176 date=1079571709]
You cant logically explain such a thing as the existence of God for example. People have been trying for centuries to no avail.
[/quote]

That's a good hint.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50176 date=1079571709]
You cant logically explain such a thing as the existence of God for example. People have been trying for centuries to no avail.
[/quote]
Have you not read Descartes/Augustine? If you have, can you give your counter arguments to each of their proofs, please?


Anyway, I'd like to officially give this thread 2 awards:
1) Longest thread ever
2) The worst ratio of posts:new information ever in any thread.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50246 date=1079631271]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50176 date=1079571709]
You cant logically explain such a thing as the existence of God for example. People have been trying for centuries to no avail.
[/quote]
Have you not read Descartes/Augustine? If you have, can you give your counter arguments to each of their proofs, please?


Anyway, I'd like to officially give this thread 2 awards:
1) Longest thread ever
2) The worst ratio of posts:new information ever in any thread.
[/quote]

Ah two excellent comments. It is good to see some recognition for all the new information packed in each post. However I doubt that the average new information per post is the highest among all topics on all forums.

No, I'd say new information:posts is lowest of any thread on the forum. Since about page 3 there't barely been any, in fact.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50250 date=1079633760]
No, I'd say new information:posts is lowest of any thread on the forum. Since about page 3 there't barely been any, in fact.
[/quote]

Make up your mind :) First you say posts:newinfo is lowest ever, now you say newinfo:posts is lowest ever!

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50255 date=1079636145]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50250 date=1079633760]
No, I'd say new information:posts is lowest of any thread on the forum. Since about page 3 there't barely been any, in fact.
[/quote]

Make up your mind :) First you say posts:newinfo is lowest ever, now you say newinfo:posts is lowest ever!
[/quote]

I'm no good at rations, which is why I said "worst" and not "lowest"

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50258 date=1079637993]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50255 date=1079636145]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50250 date=1079633760]
No, I'd say new information:posts is lowest of any thread on the forum. Since about page 3 there't barely been any, in fact.
[/quote]

Make up your mind :) First you say posts:newinfo is lowest ever, now you say newinfo:posts is lowest ever!
[/quote]

I'm no good at rations, which is why I said "worst" and not "lowest"
[/quote]

I can see how eating a good meal can be confusing.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50260 date=1079638926]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50258 date=1079637993]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50255 date=1079636145]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50250 date=1079633760]
No, I'd say new information:posts is lowest of any thread on the forum. Since about page 3 there't barely been any, in fact.
[/quote]

Make up your mind :) First you say posts:newinfo is lowest ever, now you say newinfo:posts is lowest ever!
[/quote]

I'm no good at rations, which is why I said "worst" and not "lowest"
[/quote]

I can see how eating a good meal can be confusing.
[/quote]

hahaha, this thread is getting worse and worse. Rations confuse me, ratios confuse me, and good meals are just good meals.

I don't think the ratio of new information is *that* low per post. It's low per byte, but most threads actually do have many posts that don't add any information at all.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50262 date=1079639600]
I don't think the ratio of new information is *that* low per post. It's low per byte, but most threads actually do have many posts that don't add any information at all.
[/quote]

Well, this post has about 17*15 posts, which is ... a lot. 255, in fact. There's new information in maybe 50 of them. That's only 1/5, which isn't that great.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50246 date=1079631271]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50176 date=1079571709]
You cant logically explain such a thing as the existence of God for example. People have been trying for centuries to no avail.
[/quote]
Have you not read Descartes/Augustine? If you have, can you give your counter arguments to each of their proofs, please?
[/quote]

Actually yes and as soon as I have a few spare minuts I'd gladly give the counter-arguments to their points.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50273 date=1079641419]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50246 date=1079631271]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=225#msg50176 date=1079571709]
You cant logically explain such a thing as the existence of God for example. People have been trying for centuries to no avail.
[/quote]
Have you not read Descartes/Augustine? If you have, can you give your counter arguments to each of their proofs, please?
[/quote]

Actually yes and as soon as I have a few spare minuts I'd gladly give the counter-arguments to their points.
[/quote]

Sure, I'll be waiting. And don't forget to list the main poitns in the proof, too,since it's been 3 years since I've studied them and I'm sure most of us here don't know them.

Yea, I'm taking AP Philosophy and I have a bunch of good notes on the basics I can give for people to get semi-up to speed.

I like burritos. I dont like the kind from Taco Bell; I'm talking about the frozen burritos that you heat up in the microwave. They are so good.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50270 date=1079640957]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50262 date=1079639600]
I don't think the ratio of new information is *that* low per post. It's low per byte, but most threads actually do have many posts that don't add any information at all.
[/quote]

Well, this post has about 17*15 posts, which is ... a lot. 255, in fact. There's new information in maybe 50 of them. That's only 1/5, which isn't that great.
[/quote]

Did you go through those 50? What qualifies as "new information" ?

No.

Stuff that hasn't already been said.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=255#msg50291 date=1079643776]
No.

Stuff that hasn't already been said.
[/quote]

What about further motivating previously mentioned statements/opinions?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=255#msg50294 date=1079646266]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=255#msg50291 date=1079643776]
No.

Stuff that hasn't already been said.
[/quote]

What about further motivating previously mentioned statements/opinions?
[/quote]

Nah, doesn't count. I'm being very arbitrary here :)

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=240#msg50283 date=1079642545]
Yea, I'm taking AP Philosophy and I have a bunch of good notes on the basics I can give for people to get semi-up to speed.
[/quote]

Great. We MUST get Tara in here when you do.

Get her in here she can join in.

I was trying to see if I could drive it farther off topic. Apparently I can :)

Isn't it about time that this thread get moved to the more appropriate board?

I'm not sure what would be appropriate, considering how much has been said in it. We're not even really arguing anymore, so it's got to be pretty general/misc.

burger king fries rule.

Well, just to keep it going, moo.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=255#msg50342 date=1079663432]
burger king fries rule.
[/quote]

Yup.

I hate burger king's fries, Wendy's fries are what kick ass...

I like Burger King's putines, or poutines, or whatever, but they're so unhealthy but they're so good. Bah, I'm making myself hungry :(

I like almost any steak fries, especially with steak sauce.

If you're frying your own fries, try adding a few ounces of dill pickle juice to the oil. Let it simmer on a lower temperature than normal so the dill has time to get in the fries. Makes almost perfect McDonald's fries, although they use beef flavoring instead of dill.

I don't like fries that much, Burgers are sweet!

I don't like McDonalds fries that much because they're mostly not crisp enough. I don't know what they do different from Burger King, but their fries tend to be way too soft and mushy 75% of the time. Burger King on the other hand has always served me excellent fries.

Those are the two world-wide hamburger chains I have experience of. What's good about Wendy's fries, and where can I get them?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=255#msg50415 date=1079715481]
I don't like McDonalds fries that much because they're mostly not crisp enough. I don't know what they do different from Burger King, but their fries tend to be way too soft and mushy 75% of the time. Burger King on the other hand has always served me excellent fries.

Those are the two world-wide hamburger chains I have experience of. What's good about Wendy's fries, and where can I get them?
[/quote]

I've heard from most people I know that Wendy's has terrible fries. They tend to be crispier, though, so maybe you'd like them.

I think Wendy's is mostly in North America, Arta was telling me there's a few in England but they aren't very good. A&W also makes great fries, and onion rings, but they are also North American only

I like burritos. I like the frozen burritos that you heat up in your microwave. I also like jack in the box tacos. They're so fried, and good.

And now that I think about it, McDonalds would have the best fries if they were crispier.

You've never had 'fries' till you've had big chunky ones from a fish and chip shop. *dribbles*

For lunch I'm eating chicken breasts stuffed with cheese and broccoli. Who says genetic engineering is wrong?

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50431 date=1079717822]
For lunch I'm eating chicken breasts stuffed with cheese and broccoli. Who says genetic engineering is wrong?
[/quote]

Genetic engineering isn't wrong, but it's a technology that I don't think we're ready to handle properly. When you manipulate genes, you're creating things that may affect earth for a long time, yet those who make the decisions only think about how much profit they can show this year.

Like breeding chickens with broccoli and cheese built in? :)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50434 date=1079718117]
Like breeding chickens with broccoli and cheese built in? :)
[/quote]

That doesn't concern me so much. Something that makes me concerned is injecting genes for resistance to or for producing poisons and antibiotics into things. We don't know, cannot know, what that will lead to, and it might lead to rather bad things.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50437 date=1079718293]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50434 date=1079718117]
Like breeding chickens with broccoli and cheese built in? :)
[/quote]

That doesn't concern me so much. Something that makes me concerned is injecting genes for resistance to or for producing poisons and antibiotics into things. We don't know, cannot know, what that will lead to, and it might lead to rather bad things.
[/quote]

Maybe the broccoli and cheese came from selective breeding. The kept breeding the two chickens with the highest level of broccoli and cheese until their offspring were filled with them.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50438 date=1079718778]
Maybe the broccoli and cheese came from selective breeding. The kept breeding the two chickens with the highest level of broccoli and cheese until their offspring were filled with them.
[/quote]

Yes, that's ok because it will happen slow enough that they will notice any bad effects starting to show up.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50439 date=1079718888]
Yes, that's ok because it will happen slow enough that they will notice any bad effects starting to show up.
[/quote]

I get the impression that we are having completely different conversations :)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50440 date=1079719074]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50439 date=1079718888]
Yes, that's ok because it will happen slow enough that they will notice any bad effects starting to show up.
[/quote]

I get the impression that we are having completely different conversations :)
[/quote]

Well, as you probably know, broccoli enhances iron absorption. Now, if you breed this into chickens slowly, you'd notice if they start eating iron before it goes out of hand. If on the other hand, you add it by gene manipulation, you might be creating a monster, a chicken that eats out of anything iron.

Just think about the world we would have when chickens can no longer be contained with steel (remember, steel is refined iron).

To prevent lead poisoning in nature, there's been a shift in bullets from consisting mainly of lead to being made of steel. Of course, a steel absorbing chicken would then be completely impervious to bullets. You would be creating a race of superior chickens, that would move on to take over the world.

And all this because of something you like to eat? Is it really worth that? WELL?!

Yes, it would be totally worth it. "Eat them up yum!"

So cage them in plastic... Chickens aren't super strong you know.

As for the wendy's fries, they are about 3x the size of burger king fries, and have perfect texture to them. I also have never had those little 1/2 inch fries left at the bottom of the container at wendy's.

I like the McChicken from mcdonalds and the crispy chicken from burger king, they tend to have more taste than regular burgers. Harvey's burgers are the all time best though, juicy and with only ingredients you want.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=270#msg50676 date=1079891206]
I like the McChicken from mcdonalds and the crispy chicken from burger king, they tend to have more taste than regular burgers. Harvey's burgers are the all time best though, juicy and with only ingredients you want.
[/quote]

This makes me think of the movie "Falling Down", how he points at the hamburger picture on the wall, and it's not at all like the hamburger he got...

He also walks around with a gun through a large part of the movie, but as far as I can remember, he never shoots anyone with it. He wants to do the right thing, but the world is crazy around him, and eventually he gets killed because he had a gun. Well, a water gun.

On CSI last week somebody was attacked on the street and pulled a gun. The criminal managed to wrestle it away from him and shoot the gun's owner.

Then again, that is a television show and the statistics on that show that such an event is extremely unlikely.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50764 date=1079922975]
Then again, that is a television show and the statistics on that show that such an event is extremely unlikely.
[/quote]

I could see it happening no problem.

I can see total nuclear war no problem. Doesn't mean its going to happen nor will it happen often. Look up the statistics on weapons being taken from their owner and used against them, what you see will go against the CSI story.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50780 date=1079924888]
I can see total nuclear war no problem. Doesn't mean its going to happen nor will it happen often. Look up the statistics on weapons being taken from their owner and used against them, what you see will go against the CSI story.
[/quote]
Weapons are alot more common than nuclear weapons, I'm sure if everyone could get their hands on nuclear weapons we'd all be dead.

If everyone could get their hands on guns we'd all be dead too.

That's true, guess what? Your government is trying to disarm nukes from the rest of the world. The reasons there doing it, I may not agree with, but they ARE trying to do it. Sounds hypocritical?

Is it not ironic that the United States thinks we are the only ones to be trusted with Nukes, while at the same time, we're the only one to have ever used them on a population?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50796 date=1079926459]
Is it not ironic that the United States thinks we are the only ones to be trusted with Nukes, while at the same time, we're the only one to have ever used them on a population?
[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50789 date=1079925620]
If everyone could get their hands on guns we'd all be dead too.
[/quote]
Everyone CAN get their hands on a gun, legal or otherwise. I was pointing out that you can't compare nuclear arms to fire arms.

Not everyone can get their hands on guns, getting them illegally can be quite expensive.

It is ironic, then again, little to nothing was known of the after effects at the tme that the bombs were used on Japan. From then on, how many has anybody used on population?

At least if the US manages to disarm the rest of the world then they'll hold all the power and everybody else will have to do everything they say. They're trying to eliminate the balance of power, which is great as long as EVERYBODY does it.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50842 date=1079961907]
Not everyone can get their hands on guns, getting them illegally can be quite expensive.
[/quote]
Stealing is free, so is borriwing your relative's/friend's gun. Besides, if you REALLY wanted to get your hands on a gun, you could pay for it.

If you really wanted to get your hands on a nuclear warhead you could.

If that was true there would have been dozens launched at the US by now.

Actually, getting a reliable delivery system is probably harder.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50887 date=1079976732]
If that was true there would have been dozens launched at the US by now.
[/quote]

Fear of immediate and obliterating retalliation is probably pretty high.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50896 date=1079978371]
Actually, getting a reliable delivery system is probably harder.
[/quote]

Yes.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50883 date=1079975583]
If you really wanted to get your hands on a nuclear warhead you could.
[/quote]

I'm sure there are plenty of al'Quaida cells who really want to get their hands on a nuclear warhead.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50898 date=1079980761]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50887 date=1079976732]
If that was true there would have been dozens launched at the US by now.
[/quote]

Fear of immediate and obliterating retalliation is probably pretty high.
[/quote]

That's not an issue to people who are already experiencing obliterating retaliations. It's also not an issue to suicide bombers. Try again.

I had macaroni for lunch today. With cheese/bacon/tomato/hamburger in it. My mom calls it slop.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

Anybody like the new thread name?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=285#msg50883 date=1079975583]
If you really wanted to get your hands on a nuclear warhead you could.
[/quote]
No you couldn't. In the case of a nuclear warhead you'd need lots of money and the right connections, which not everybody can get. Nuclear warheads are also not as concealable or common as guns.

The point: If you REALLY WANTED ONE, you could get one.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50911 date=1079986477]
I had macaroni for lunch today. With cheese/bacon/tomato/hamburger in it. My mom calls it slop.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.
[/quote]

I like macaroni with bacon and tomatoes, adding cheese and hamburger sounds like it'd mix it up too much for my taste.

And what do you expect from your cat? Maybe you should start feeding him mints?

I really want a gun, can you tell me how to get one?

I also really want a nuke, care to lead me in that direction too?

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50955 date=1079991971]
The point: If you REALLY WANTED ONE, you could get one.
[/quote]

Al'Quaida really wants one. Why haven't they got one and detonated it in New York?

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50959 date=1079992117]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50955 date=1079991971]
The point: If you REALLY WANTED ONE, you could get one.
[/quote]

Al'Quaida really wants one. Why haven't they got one and detonated it in New York?
[/quote]

They have most likely tried. But fortunately, to build a working nuclear bomb, there are discrete technologies involved which can only be produced by known people, manufacturers, and countries. So far our intelligence is comprehensive enough to trigger a warning when a rogue group is probably planning something like that, and we probably quietly assassinate anyone involved.

Yes, j0k3r. Sleezy pawn shop or perhaps a neighborhood gang member.

Yes, j0k3r. Check with the black market. You honestly think things like that aren't available?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50962 date=1079992492]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50959 date=1079992117]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50955 date=1079991971]
The point: If you REALLY WANTED ONE, you could get one.
[/quote]

Al'Quaida really wants one. Why haven't they got one and detonated it in New York?
[/quote]

They have most likely tried. But fortunately, to build a working nuclear bomb, there are discrete technologies involved which can only be produced by known people, manufacturers, and countries. So far our intelligence is comprehensive enough to trigger a warning when a rogue group is probably planning something like that, and we probably quietly assassinate anyone involved.
[/quote]

So, Hazard is wrong?

They must not want it bad enough. Its like I always say, "Find a way or make a way!"

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=300#msg50970 date=1079993321]
They must not want it bad enough. Its like I always say, "Find a way or make a way!"
[/quote]

They're ready to give their lives to kill americans. If that's not wanting it bad enough, I'm not sure what is.

kerry only wants to raise taxes... i dont think he should be elected... but on the other hand bush has a problem with gay guys (not sure about kerry) its tehre life they should be able to get it in the u know wehre if they want... how does that pertain to people such as married straight couples?

[quote author=GoSuGaMING link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg50977 date=1079993860]
kerry only wants to raise taxes... i dont think he should be elected... but on the other hand bush has a problem with gay guys (not sure about kerry) its tehre life they should be able to get it in the u know wehre if they want... how does that pertain to people such as married straight couples?
[/quote]

Maybe...just maybe it has to do with the tax breaks married people get? Just a guess.

[quote author=GoSuGaMING link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg50977 date=1079993860]
kerry only wants to raise taxes... i dont think he should be elected... but on the other hand bush has a problem with gay guys (not sure about kerry) its tehre life they should be able to get it in the u know wehre if they want... how does that pertain to people such as married straight couples?
[/quote]
I'll keep refraining from flaming... But here's some free advice.
Use periods.
Correct your horrible spelling mistakes.
This thread has turned into a stupid arguments thread, I don't know why it's still here. If you wanted a serious discussion you should start a new thread, and follow my advice.

He has a good point. He wants to slash military spending and dump all of that money into some other useless program, then hike taxes through the roof. The best approach would be to raise taxes a little and cut spending a little, not just one or the other.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg50990 date=1079995254]
But here's some free advice.
Use periods.
Correct your horrible spelling mistakes.[/quote]

Here j0k3r i'll type how you would you me to. If you think that this is so stupid then you probably do not have a job. Out of every paycheck I get they take about 20$ out... At minimum wage thats four hours of work, assuming its 5.25 an hour.

[quote author=GoSuGaMING link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg51125 date=1080047006]
[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg50990 date=1079995254]
But here's some free advice.
Use periods.
Correct your horrible spelling mistakes.[/quote]

Here j0k3r i'll type how you would you me to. If you think that this is so stupid then you probably do not have a job. Out of every paycheck I get they take about 20$ out... At minimum wage thats four hours of work, assuming its 5.25 an hour.
[/quote]

Ugh. Read my forum.

I work 37.25 hours/week @ $15.38/hour (canadian). Each paycheque (every 2 weeks) I lose about $250 to taxes/other stuff. That's ... 16.25 hours of work. 2 days!

Although because I'm also a fulltime student I'll get it back next april, but that's not the point! :)

And out of my paycheck they take ~65 hours every month.

[quote author=GoSuGaMING link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg50977 date=1079993860]
kerry only wants to raise taxes... i dont think he should be elected...[/quote]

That's patently ridiculous. Nobody "only" wants to raise taxes. Taxation has its purpose under our governmental structure. Don't tax enough, and things start falling apart due to lack of funds. Tax too much, and the people become impoverished and angry.

Right now, I'm definitely leaning toward the "things falling apart" side of the coin. One thing I though Howard Dean did well, while he was a big deal, was to point out that the "tax cuts" touted by the Bush administration did not save working people money. There are other kinds of expenses, besides federal taxes, like state tax and college tuition, to name a couple. Lots of those sorts of things went up to compensate for the lack of cash they were receiving from the federal government. My college tuition alone got jacked up more than $3000 this year. My family has less money now than we did 4 years ago. If that is the effect "lowering" taxes has, I'm all for bringing them back up to acceptable levels.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry is an opportunistic jackass. However, Bush's economic plan has been an unmitigated disaster, and he simply has to go.

That is such screwed up economics that I hit my forehead with my fist when I read it.

Where do you think "federal government money" comes from? It is not magic. It costs money to collect and distribute money. So if you're doing that less, it costs less. If a tuition jack was more than the difference, then its the college that screwed you, not the fact that you paid less taxes.

Try to think of money as energy, and use some of the parallels there for approximations on behavior.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg51210 date=1080081020]
That is such screwed up economics that I hit my forehead with my fist when I read it.

Where do you think "federal government money" comes from? It is not magic. It costs money to collect and distribute money. So if you're doing that less, it costs less. If a tuition jack was more than the difference, then its the college that screwed you, not the fact that you paid less taxes.

Try to think of money as energy, and use some of the parallels there for approximations on behavior.
[/quote]

Well, cutting taxes typically helps those who pay the most taxes. People with low salaries are likely to be helped more by higher taxes.

Also, the money as energy picture isn't perfect, because money "lost" isn't turned into heat, it's turned into employment. You'll have unemployment in tax collectors/distributers ;)

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg51210 date=1080081020]Where do you think "federal government money" comes from? It is not magic. It costs money to collect and distribute money. So if you're doing that less, it costs less. If a tuition jack was more than the difference, then its the college that screwed you, not the fact that you paid less taxes.
[/quote]

You missed the point, Grok. The federal government doles out money to all kinds of organizations, projects, people, etc... It also has salaries to pay. Now, since most of it's income is provided by taxes, it stands to reason that when taxes are lower there is less of that money to go around, doesn't it?

When the federal taxes went down, my state taxes went up, because the state was now getting less financial aid from the federal government. Lowering the federal tax rate has cost me money, not saved it.

edit: My point was more that it isn't Kerry's goal in life to wildly raise taxes for no reason. He wants a more weighted tax scale (wealthy people shouldering more of the tax burden) as well as more money for government programs. It isn't like he was going to pocket the extra tax revenue

[quote author=Zakath link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg51221 date=1080082885]
[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=5553;start=315#msg51210 date=1080081020]Where do you think "federal government money" comes from? It is not magic. It costs money to collect and distribute money. So if you're doing that less, it costs less. If a tuition jack was more than the difference, then its the college that screwed you, not the fact that you paid less taxes.
[/quote]

You missed the point, Grok. The federal government doles out money to all kinds of organizations, projects, people, etc... It also has salaries to pay. Now, since most of it's income is provided by taxes, it stands to reason that when taxes are lower there is less of that money to go around, doesn't it?
[/quote]

Ack. I give up.