Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 04:45 PM
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?

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 from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 04:45 PM
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.

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 from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 04:45 PM
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 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 from: Kp on March 14, 2004, 04:45 PM
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...

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 from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:02 PM
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.

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 from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 07:57 PM
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?

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?

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 from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:02 PM
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.

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 from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:04 PM
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.

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 from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:17 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:02 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 07:57 PM
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?

Yes. If they have a weapon, however, its on. Why can't you accept that people can be responsible with weapons?

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.

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 from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:17 PM
I don't have a fire extinguisher handy.

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 from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:17 PM
I do wear a seat belt, because it's convenient and doesn't cause any additional risk.

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 from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:17 PM
I don't carry a first aid kit.

Its a shame you would not be able to help somebody in need.

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:17 PM
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.

My point is you prepare for emergencies, which is the same as keeping a gun for the unlikely event of an emergency.

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:22 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:04 PM
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.

Yes, I am equating guns with violence. You don't think using a gun against someone is violent?

Guns are not violent. People are violent. I have never heard of a gun being left completely by itself and hurting anyone.

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:22 PM
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.

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 from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:38 PM

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 07:34 PM

Quote911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

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.

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 09:13 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:38 PM

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 07:34 PM

Quote911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

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.

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.

Can you point out where I said that again? I must have missed it.

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 09:15 PM

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 09:13 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:38 PM

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 07:34 PM

Quote911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

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.

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.

Can you point out where I said that again? I must have missed it.

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 from: iago on March 14, 2004, 09:29 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 09:15 PM

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 09:13 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 07:38 PM

Quote from: iago on March 14, 2004, 07:34 PM

Quote911 can send crime-stoppers at 80 mph. My rifle can send them at 800. Which should I depend on to save my life?

I've never seen anybody take their 911 (phone?) to school and shoot random students.

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.

Yes, if all the kids had guns it would have been much better.

Can you point out where I said that again? I must have missed it.

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

A trained armed citizen would have been able to aid in the situation, IMO.

Quote from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:34 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:22 PM
Yes, I am equating guns with violence. You don't think using a gun against someone is violent?

Guns are not violent. People are violent. I have never heard of a gun being left completely by itself and hurting anyone.

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 from: Grok on March 14, 2004, 09:52 PM
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 sure it is. Maybe we can find somebody to tell us what that is like.

Quote from: Grok on March 14, 2004, 09:52 PM
Yet I do not see you conceding any points even when valid.

Nor is my "opposition" if thats what you'd like to call them.

Quote from: Grok on March 14, 2004, 09:52 PM
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.

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 from: Hazard on March 14, 2004, 08:34 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 14, 2004, 08:22 PM
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.

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.

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 from: Grok on March 15, 2004, 10:18 AM
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.

If the smugglers didn't have guns, the coastguard wouldn't need them either