Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Naem on March 11, 2004, 06:42 PM
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.

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 from: Naem on March 11, 2004, 06:42 PM
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.

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 from: iago on March 12, 2004, 10:48 AM
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.

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 from: iago on March 12, 2004, 10:16 AM
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.  

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 from: Adron on March 12, 2004, 09:51 AM
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.

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 from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 02:10 PM
Your entire argument is that people don't have the right to defend themselves.

I certainly don't get that impression after reading the discussion.

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 02:10 PM
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.

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.

QuoteAh 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

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 from: Adron on March 12, 2004, 03:15 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 02:10 PM
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.

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.

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 from: iago on March 12, 2004, 03:28 PM
Pepper spray isn't a seasoning, it's a chemical.  There's a big difference.

Pepper spray won't stop somebody hell bent on killing you

Quote from: iago on March 12, 2004, 03:28 PM

QuoteAh 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

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.

He could just kill you couldn't he?

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
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.

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 from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
Pepper spray won't stop somebody hell bent on killing you

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 from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
He could just kill you couldn't he?

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

Quote from: iago on March 12, 2004, 04:40 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
He could just kill you couldn't he?

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 12, 2004, 04:05 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
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.

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!

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 from: Adron on March 12, 2004, 04:05 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
Pepper spray won't stop somebody hell bent on killing you

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.

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:

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 05:29 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 12, 2004, 04:05 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 03:52 PM
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.

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!

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?

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 from: Hazard on March 12, 2004, 05:29 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 12, 2004, 04:05 PM
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.

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.

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...