|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:04pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
So in other words, you were completely defenseless, entirely at their mercy, they know your doors are unlocked and can come back whenever they want, you won't even call the police, have nothing to defend yourself with, and are basically banking on your misguided belief that everybody is a good person and you have nothing to worry about.
Also lol @ at burglary being at the bottom end of the 'crime food chain'. Semantics aside, if two guys break into my house, I'm going to whole-heartedly assume that they don't have the best intentions. Like am I missing something here? My house isn't for the public to enter, steal my stuff, inherently threaten my safety, etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:11pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
And by way, this bothers me. If I were your neighbor, it would really bother me.
If you get robbed or maimed or family hurt because of your own lack of responsibility, preparedness, and foresight, fine. But your attitude (and many people who feel similarly) make it easier for criminals to operate. Nothing bad will ever happen to them from going into your place. They will never be in immiment danger, and will never be arrested and charged for their felonies. So what do they do? They go next door next, or wherever else...
goddamn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:12pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3603
WPP: 99
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
You got the lucky end of a persons "fight or flight" mechanism. They chose flight. If they had chosen fight, I don't think you realize that you very well might be dead. It amuses me that after they left you decided it was a good time to lock your door, but you still don't do it every day.
That's brilliance right there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:24pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3603
WPP: 99
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
| Pelion wrote: | | Renton wrote: |
Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.
You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial. |
Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime. |
You're ignoring the fact that this is pretty much exactly what the law says.
Here's the florida law, since its the one I'm most familiar with after taking god knows how many classes on it:
A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
It goes on to define exactly what those forcible felonies are, but I don't think that's important here. Note however that the bolded area does NOT say "against themselves, their family, or any person to which they have a legal duty". It says if they see the imminent commission of a forcible felony ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, they can use deadly force IF he or she reasonably (and that reasonableness test is decided by the JURY) believes it to be necessary.
People most certainly HAVE been put in prison by a jury for violating the reasonableness test.
So in short, your premise is flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:29pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
Euph-- I think Pelion was pointing out that's pretty much what the law is.
I think a lot of states are starting to get these things right with more liberalized CCW and castle doctrine laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:36pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3603
WPP: 99
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
CCW laws are not the answer. If our goal is to deter crime, rather than just kill people who commit crime, then open carry (as in, you can see that fucking glock on my hip and I ain't hiding it) should be an option.
In Florida open carry is specifically illegal and we're one of the most pro-gun states around. I think that's absurd. The idea behind CCW was that the criminals would never know who was carrying and who wasn't -- but criminals DO know that the odds of anyone in a given area carrying are still very very low. I can't think of any good reason not to allow both. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:56pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 440
WPP: 197
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | Pelion wrote: | what is your point spoon?
Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?
It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?
Or something else? |
My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.
Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational. |
i agree, but there is more badness to be found in this kid getting killed which is why the moral compass goes against having a child getting blown in half in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:27pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| euphoricism wrote: | CCW laws are not the answer. If our goal is to deter crime, rather than just kill people who commit crime, then open carry (as in, you can see that fucking glock on my hip and I ain't hiding it) should be an option.
In Florida open carry is specifically illegal and we're one of the most pro-gun states around. I think that's absurd. The idea behind CCW was that the criminals would never know who was carrying and who wasn't -- but criminals DO know that the odds of anyone in a given area carrying are still very very low. I can't think of any good reason not to allow both. |
I agree. I think concealed carry is a better option though, but that's just my personal opinion.
Also, re: Florida-- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
| Quote: | In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) |
there's a lot of good stuff in there...
| Quote: | | John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:45pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3603
WPP: 99
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:31pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 139
WPP: 204
Location: Going to church makes you a Christian about as much as standing in the garage makes you a car.
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
ok ..you just admited that you STILL dont lock your doors after you found someone in your house....
where do you live?
never neverland?
you are foolish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:49pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| euphoricism wrote: | Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.
Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:51pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
i think you watch too many michael moore movies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:55pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
Honestly, like I keep reading this and I'm completely bewildered. I mean, you can't even lock your door and call the police if you hear it get busted down? I'm not saying that's a perfect solution, but it's a whole lot better than doing nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 4:13pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 3556
WPP: 112
Location: at your tables, calling your bets
|
|
I think oskar should leave a glass of milk and some chocolate chip cookies on the table every night.
Edit: I don't want this post to come across as snarky since I complained about snarky posts earlier in the thread, but the way you handled the situation (and continue to handle it) puts your life in danger for no good reason. |
Last edited by mcatdog on Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 4:35pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 4:14pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3603
WPP: 99
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | euphoricism wrote: | Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.
Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway. |
oh yes don't get me wrong, we KNOW that CCW permits have reduced crime rates. However it stands to reason that also allowing open carry would reduce it even further, and I have not found a good argument against that policy yet. The closest I've heard is "Itll be just like the wild west with gunfights in the streets!" which is fallacious for a number of reasons -- not the least being that the wild west had significantly lower rates of violent crimes precisely BECAUSE everyone had a gun on their hip. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 5:09pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | | Pelion wrote: | what is your point spoon?
Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?
It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?
Or something else? |
My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.
Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational. |
i agree, but there is more badness to be found in this kid getting killed which is why the moral compass goes against having a child getting blown in half in the first place. |
Eh, maybe. It's fairly subjective and we could go on with this for days and days with no end in sight. It would be much easier to evaluate if we were given more information what what exactly went on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 5:16pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
|
gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 9:28pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| euphoricism wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | | euphoricism wrote: | Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.
Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway. |
oh yes don't get me wrong, we KNOW that CCW permits have reduced crime rates. However it stands to reason that also allowing open carry would reduce it even further, and I have not found a good argument against that policy yet. The closest I've heard is "Itll be just like the wild west with gunfights in the streets!" which is fallacious for a number of reasons -- not the least being that the wild west had significantly lower rates of violent crimes precisely BECAUSE everyone had a gun on their hip. |
I support the right to open carry. On an individual basis, I think CCW is a better choice for a variety of reasons. Like I said though, by no means do I see open carry as bad, it doesn't make me nervous, and I support the right to able to do it.
About the "it'll juts be like the wild west".. I think people get that crap from hollywood and base their opinions on that, be it consciously or subconsciously. It's quite sad, really.
Why would a criminal go through the process of getting a CCW permit (classes, fingerprinting, licensing, etc.)? Why would a criminal carry openly on their hip? It makes no sense. And by every account I've ever read, people who carry are like, the most law-abiding group of any, and it's not even close. Yet people still spew this vigilanteism and wild wild west crap like they believe it.. drives me crazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 10:47pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight Flush
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 5681
WPP: 126
Location: Ballarat, Australia
|
|
I think some people grossly overestimate the amount of thought and consideration a lot of people would give when faced with the situation of multiple intruders inside their home.
If I found multiple people breaking into my home, especially if my wife and son were home, I would not be giving consideration to their age and potential motivations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 11:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
| bjsaust wrote: | I think some people grossly overestimate the amount of thought and consideration a lot of people would give when faced with the situation of multiple intruders inside their home.
If I found multiple people breaking into my home, especially if my wife and son were home, I would not be giving consideration to their age and potential motivations. |
| KoRnholio wrote: | | Bottom line: the average person is too stupid to make judgment calls about who lives and who dies, which is why guns SHOULD be restricted. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 12:02am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | I support the right to open carry. On an individual basis, I think CCW is a better choice for a variety of reasons. Like I said though, by no means do I see open carry as bad, it doesn't make me nervous, and I support the right to able to do it.
About the "it'll juts be like the wild west".. I think people get that crap from hollywood and base their opinions on that, be it consciously or subconsciously. It's quite sad, really.
Why would a criminal go through the process of getting a CCW permit (classes, fingerprinting, licensing, etc.)? Why would a criminal carry openly on their hip? It makes no sense. And by every account I've ever read, people who carry are like, the most law-abiding group of any, and it's not even close. Yet people still spew this vigilanteism and wild wild west crap like they believe it.. drives me crazy. |
I kind of see your point.
The problem I have with guns in civilian possesion is the finality of it all.
With this I mean, you cannot take the bullet back. You cannot unkill the poopyhead.
typical and related gun toting scenario: someone comes over to your homegame, but he or she brings a gun. would you allow this? can you trust this person to be fully responsible with his or her gun, and not draw it and shoot the poopyhead who two-outed/rivered him or her in a big pot? I would not. I would in fact fear him or her. I would not even make jokes with this person (serious business). Because this person would have the ability, the power, to directly take my life away if he/he saw me as somehow a threat. I do not know what he or she thinks is a threat (that nigga looked at me crosseyed I tell you he had bad intentions!) nor do I know when he or she might have mood swings or drunkeness or depression or whatever other kind of fucked up shit that will make this person draw and shoot.
And yes, the moment a person carries a gun, that person can technically draw it and shoot it at anytime he/she pleases. I have to trust that person that he/she does know the consequences of doing so, can remain cool-headed to actually draw the right conclusion on when to do so, and that he/she would not do so without valid reason. And I just don't. I can't. One misjudgment on that person's part and OOPS I'm gone.
Oh I trust a uniformed person to know what he or she is doing somewhat, but not Random Joe.
Lets go further: everyone at the game brings a gun. Would you feel comfortable in your own home in such a scenario? I mean its totally possible for someone to break in at the precise moment that you would have your homegame, and then all of you in tandem would make holes in this persons body. Its also possible that the person who broke in was just some poor homeless bastard looking for something to eat and was, of course, totally unarmed. Its also totally possible that one of the players can cave in to the emotional swings of a situation and draw out and shoot at that poopyhead who keeps rivering and taunting him and made him lose his salary.
the branches are endless, but the outcomes are all the same.
Sidenote: In Switzerland, every household has a gun. Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.
Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.
Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.
As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.
Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.
Sidenote 2: Look at this shit, 1992 numbers but hey, the world did not change that freaking much
Handgun murders (1992) (2)
| Code: |
Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 2:46am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 440
WPP: 197
|
|
ok, lets take similar reasoning.
Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 3:26am Post subject:
|
|
|
{NSFW - nipple}
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 2186
WPP: 107
Location: The Loser's Lounge
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | ok, lets take similar reasoning.
Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them? |
No, they're likely poor players and don't have the time to dedicate towards learning poker like we all do. ez money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 4:23am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP
plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)
I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 9:02am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 3190
WPP: 95
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | ok, lets take similar reasoning.
Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them? |
this comparison is way off. If they go crazy at you you and you have 2 other people in the room you could pretty easily over power them. Even if they are on their own they are very unlikely to kill you.
guns are 0 -> dead in about half a second.
Boxers have a lot more time to change their minds and a lot more time for others to react to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 9:13am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547
WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP
plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)
I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes |
No but you can buy a set of steak knives for $2 at Wal-Mart and that's even better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 9:46am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 3190
WPP: 95
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | Jack Sawyer wrote: | Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP
plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)
I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes |
No but you can buy a set of steak knives for $2 at Wal-Mart and that's even better. |
If someone showed up at my home game with a set of steak knives id reconsider letting them in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 10:26am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 440
WPP: 197
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | Look at how the Chuck Liddell did at the WSOP
plus, you cannot "buy" muscle and martial arts know-how in 10 minutes over the counter (yeah I know you cannot buy guns in this satirical manner but you hopefully get my point)
I wish they sold that, instant muscle in a bottle, would sell like hot cakes |
i dont actually get your point. why does the time it takes to buy a gun have any impact at all? Do you know how much consideration a normal person gives before deciding on buying a gun? You think he comes to the home game with one just so he can shoot the mutha fucka that 2 outted him? Um, no...if he's carrying at all he is most likely doing it for some kind of defensive reason unless he is a cop. I dont think people who carry for that reason would just pull it out and fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 10:29am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 440
WPP: 197
|
|
| plus, you're all acting like he'll just pull it out for any silly reason...this isnt the case. the likelihood of him taking out the gun and firing it is pretty much the same as that of him just randomly attacking another guy. How often has this happened in your games and how often were there absolutely no warning signs beforehand? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 10:57am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
|
gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control |
Jack, a few points. I can go into more detail later but I'm short on time, but I just had to say a few things. I'll start from the bottom up from your big post (going purely by memory here).
How come you can google the gun politics situation in Washington DC and come up with gentrification, yet you won't also apply the same theories to why the U.S. handgun murder rate is higher than other industrial countries.
The fact is that the U.S. is a violent country. We have *non-firearm* homicide rates higher than some European countries' *total* homocide rates. Likewise, some countries, particularly in central america, have non-firearm homicide rates higher than OUR total murder rate.
You also have to consider that many of these other developed countries had remarkably low murder rates before they implimented any kind of gun control whatsoever.
You have some facts regarding Switzerland wrong. In addition, I've long been under the impression that their guns per capita was the highest in the world, and their gun crime among the lowest per capita in the world. If you can prove that wrong (or right), please do. I'll do a little more research on it when I have the time. Keep in mind, the country likely exists today because of their gun culture.
About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts.
I have a lot more to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 11:02am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 3190
WPP: 95
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | | the likelihood of him taking out the gun and firing it is pretty much the same as that of him just randomly attacking another guy. |
But the likelihood of him randomly attacking another guy is probably higher than the likelihood of a random person randomly attacking a guy if hes already in a place where he feels the need to bring a gun to your home. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 2:28pm Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts. |
It's not a bunch of crap at all. It's merely an exaggeration to prove a point.
I forget who made the point, but it's really a matter of "Do you mind trusting your fellow man with your life?"
I personally don't. Call me a cynic, but I don't like playing the parlay, a non-zero percentage, that random dude #1 decides to just go fuckin apeshit today and shoot me. If our technology was evolved to a point where we could legally enforce intelligence and decency as requirements for handgun registration, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with legalized guns.
Also, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but why do we even need handguns to begin with???? And where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to conceal arms? How many militias have you heard of that get into skirmish warfare with pistols like its Lethal Weapon fuckin two?
IMO in the most lax case scenario handguns and submachineguns at least should be outright banned, as they have NO GOOD REASON TO EXIST, other than to make it even more easy and fluid to pull it out and grease some unlucky poopyhead in a crime of passion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 2:33pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 140
WPP: 117
Location: Winnipeg
|
|
| Renton wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | | About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts. |
It's not a bunch of crap at all. It's merely an exaggeration to prove a point.
I forget who made the point, but it's really a matter of "Do you mind trusting your fellow man with your life?"
I personally don't. Call me a cynic, but I don't like playing the parlay, a non-zero percentage, that random dude #1 decides to just go fuckin apeshit today and shoot me. If our technology was evolved to a point where we could legally enforce intelligence and decency as requirements for handgun registration, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with legalized guns.
Also, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but why do we even need handguns to begin with???? And where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to conceal arms? How many militias have you heard of that get into skirmish warfare with pistols like its Lethal Weapon fuckin two?
IMO in the most lax case scenario handguns and submachineguns at least should be outright banned, as they have NO GOOD REASON TO EXIST, other than to make it even more easy and fluid to pull it out and grease some unlucky poopyhead in a crime of passion. |
Great stuff Renton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 01 Oct 2008, 3:00pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 02 Oct 2008, 10:58pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
[quote="Renton"] | Lukie wrote: | | About your home poker game scenario, it's a bunch of crap and you know it. You're implying the same wild-west crap that irritates me so much. CCW holders for example, and as I've already pointed out and provided sources for, are the cream-of-the-crop law abiding citizens. So drum up any wild scenario you want, facts are facts. |
| Quote: | | It's not a bunch of crap at all. It's merely an exaggeration to prove a point. |
so, like I said, it's a bunch of crap.
| Quote: | I forget who made the point, but it's really a matter of "Do you mind trusting your fellow man with your life?"
I personally don't. Call me a cynic, but I don't like playing the parlay, a non-zero percentage, that random dude #1 decides to just go fuckin apeshit today and shoot me. If our technology was evolved to a point where we could legally enforce intelligence and decency as requirements for handgun registration, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with legalized guns. |
There are something like 250,000,000 guns in the United States. Now, I'm not going to debate if this is a good or bad thing. What I will say though, and I believe very strongly in this, is that trying to ban them now would be a very bad thing. You'd then create an environment where criminals would obtain them illegally and the law-abiding citizen wouldn't be able to.
Did I ever make mention of the fact that CCW holders in Florida are 840 times *LESS* likely to commit a violent crime with a gun than non-permit holders? Considering that doesn't mesh up with your hypothetical situation (would you trust a fellow man with your life, at all), how would you respond to that? Is it possible that those who legally purchase, register, and perhaps carry firearms are overwhelmingly law abiding citizens?
| Quote: | | Also, not to open up a whole other can of worms, but why do we even need handguns to begin with???? And where in the Second Amendment does it say we have the right to conceal arms? How many militias have you heard of that get into skirmish warfare with pistols like its Lethal Weapon fuckin two? |
I'm not big on pulling the pro-2A card, even though I quite obviously support it. I stand behind it because I agree with what it entails. If you must though...
| Quote: | | A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. |
It's very cut and dry from the standpoint of proper english. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not a function of your interpretation on whether a well regulated militia is necessary or relevant in this day and age. It's saying, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To take this further, people have suggested that 'people' in this sentence is related to 'a well regulated militia'. However, take a look at other amendments in the bill of rights, and it's quite clear what people is supposed to be referring to-- the overall population.
In the first amendment, [quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the *people* peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nobody debates the relevance of the word 'people' in the first amendment.
Likewise, nobody debates the relevance of the world 'people' in the fourth amendment protecting against unreasonable searches, et al.
| Quote: | | IMO in the most lax case scenario handguns and submachineguns at least should be outright banned, as they have NO GOOD REASON TO EXIST, other than to make it even more easy and fluid to pull it out and grease some unlucky poopyhead in a crime of passion. |
What about law enforcement? I'd argue that both handguns and submachine guns are great law enforcement tools. I'm surprised that you disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 02 Oct 2008, 11:09pm Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718
WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
I think you maybe misconstrued some of what I was saying, which was essentially:
1. I think that concealable weapons have no good reason to be obtainable by the public.
2. Banning said weapons doesn't infringe on second amendment rights, because it doesn't impede the ability of people to form a militia, since rifles are perfectly well suited to defending against a tyrannical government.
Now, taking away concealed weapons might infringe on one's ability to defend himself from criminals, as carrying a 12 gauge around everywhere isn't very feasible. Therefore, I can understand that as a gripe. But the second amendment doesn't say anything about defending against criminals, so it can't be used to defend HANDgun possession. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 04 Oct 2008, 11:25pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
|
gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control |
hmm, so are you implying that its the rich white yuppies that are shootin' people up?
pardon me, but lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 04 Oct 2008, 11:56pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
| will641 wrote: | | Jack Sawyer wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
|
gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control |
hmm, so are you implying that its the rich white yuppies that are shootin' people up?
pardon me, but lol. |
Crime in Washington, D.C. peaked in the early 1990s, when it was known as the murder capital of the United States. Crime rates have since declined substantially as gentrification has spread across many parts of the city.
so, a better line would be "gentrification is seen as the main reason for the decline in murders per capita in washinton d.c. (apparently since '93), and not gun control" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 05 Oct 2008, 12:15am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 139
WPP: 204
Location: Going to church makes you a Christian about as much as standing in the garage makes you a car.
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | | ok, lets take similar reasoning. Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them? |
ok..what kind of stupid rational is that? are you for real?
someone show him the door. he's banned for stupidity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 05 Oct 2008, 1:16am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 440
WPP: 197
|
|
| triumphant cracker wrote: | | JKDS wrote: | | ok, lets take similar reasoning. Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them? |
ok..what kind of stupid rational is that? are you for real?
someone show him the door. he's banned for stupidity. |
lawl. counter arguement?
lets do something different. when was the last time you had to stop your poker game because someone just decided to go ape shit and start beating the shit out of another player? the state of mind of the guy going ape shit is equivalent to that of one pulling out a gun. The second however requires still more resolve to do, and as many people have posted, is actually LESS LIKELY because the people who buy guns legally are actually less likely to fire them illegally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 05 Oct 2008, 2:02am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1594
WPP: 117
Location: getting my swell on
|
|
| Jack Sawyer wrote: | | will641 wrote: | | Jack Sawyer wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
|
gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control |
hmm, so are you implying that its the rich white yuppies that are shootin' people up?
pardon me, but lol. |
Crime in Washington, D.C. peaked in the early 1990s, when it was known as the murder capital of the United States. Crime rates have since declined substantially as gentrification has spread across many parts of the city.
so, a better line would be "gentrification is seen as the main reason for the decline in murders per capita in washinton d.c. (apparently since '93), and not gun control" |
sorry, i misinterpreted what you were saying.
also going back to lukie's point about the wild west crap. i mean this debate basically comes down to do you honestly think criminals will go through a process for getting a gun legally? the answer is no. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun, 05 Oct 2008, 11:21am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 139
WPP: 204
Location: Going to church makes you a Christian about as much as standing in the garage makes you a car.
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | | triumphant cracker wrote: | | JKDS wrote: | | ok, lets take similar reasoning. Would you let a professional body builder, MMA, wrestler (real), boxer, etc play at your home game? would you fear them? |
ok..what kind of stupid rational is that? are you for real?
someone show him the door. he's banned for stupidity. |
lawl. counter arguement?
lets do something different. when was the last time you had to stop your poker game because someone just decided to go ape shit and start beating the shit out of another player? the state of mind of the guy going ape shit is equivalent to that of one pulling out a gun. The second however requires still more resolve to do, and as many people have posted, is actually LESS LIKELY because the people who buy guns legally are actually less likely to fire them illegally. |
last year i was at a bar playin in a game near the airport and this guy did just that to someone....broke the guys nose, and got arrested (obv.) but that shit happens at places where people dont know each other. at my home games that would never happen. however they have flipped the table. wah. wah. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 16 Oct 2008, 3:58am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 2327
WPP: 97
Location: Viva la Puteria! / Nar Shaddaa Red Sector obv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 16 Oct 2008, 2:20pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3253
WPP: 178
Location: at the pool
|
|
damnit i stopped responding to this thread because i've long gotten sick of talking about politics (all-around, with election coming up).
but jack, that last thread for example i actually remember, it's a confirmed troll post in BBV by somebody with 30-something life posts, not sure why you'd link to something like that to prove a point, lol. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 16 Oct 2008, 3:02pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 862
WPP: 152
Location: wondering where the 3 extra chairs at my 6max table came from
|
|
Maybe I'm just a cynic but...
1. F-cked up people do f-cked up things
2. Criminals will do crimes
3. Something like 3% of the worlds population are clinical sociopaths
No f-kin way you're going to control for all the variables that go into someone's decision to commit a crime and the wherewithal to do it. 'Cause they were doing it long before we had guns, knives and anything sharp to poke people with. You got sh!t Ithey want? They will try and takes it - and use whatever's handy to do it.
Flip side of that is normal people don't go on f-kin killing sprees or turn into criminals just 'cause they now have a weapon - handgun, shotgun, or set of ginsu, whatevertf.
So if you can't make criminals disappear (never happened), and they will resort to whatever's available to commit their crime (always happened), you can't remove supply. So then your only choice is do you let the victim legally possess themselves of the wherewithall to defend themselves against something they didn't ask for.
Weapons from a defensive position are about leveling the odds. License 'em, regulate 'em, train on 'em - all essential sh!t I'm cool with. But for f-ks sake, focus on keeping them out of the hands of criminals and crazy b!tches first - then worry about the other 90+% of the rest of the population! Make them legally unavailable and all you've done is empower the criminal and the stone cold crazy.
I have no sympathy for people getting shot breaking into someone elses house. Or shot jacking somebody in a dark alley. Any more than I do some fool getting the clap from repeated unprotected sex. There's an easy solution - DON'T F-KIN DO IT!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 4 Hours |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot rate topics in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
.
Forum style based on NoseBleed by mikelothar.com.
|
Restricted FTR $200 Freeroll at FullTilt on November 23rd
