Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Grok on March 05, 2004, 08:39 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:26 PM

Quote from: Grok on March 05, 2004, 08:22 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PMGood science also assumes you can prove your theory.

This is just wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 09:00 PM
Good Science isn't just done by proving something wrong. Just because you can't prove something wrong doesn't mean that it isn't. I refuse to enter another one of these arguments with you...

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-What dream world do you live in? You can't stop criminals from having weapons. You can't. If you think you can you are wrong.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-You have proven my point about the police for me Adron. They can't be everywhere all the time. This is why people should have the means to defend themselves from armed attackers. How would you feel if your family was brutally murdered because you couldn't defend them? Would you just suck it up? I don't think so.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-Removing ones ability to protect themselves and their families is morally wrong. I don't care if its a knife or a gun. You don't have the guts to look a man in the eye who saved his family from being brutally murdered and tell him he was wrong, and you know it.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-You're saying that I can defend myself unless it involves killing the man who wants to kill me? I have the right to live, and I will defend that right at all costs. ALL people have that right.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-I have no right to fire on anybody for knocking on my door. If they force their way into my home and I give them due warning then by law I have the right to take them down before they can take me down.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-I agree that convicted criminals and the clinically insane should not have firearms. However, they attain the illegally. The lawful should not be defenseless, which is, if you had your way, how you would render them.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-I know where I live getting any number of drugs could be done in less than a half hour. Its not like its exceedingly difficult to acquire illegal substances.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-Fine, destroy the guns. You don't think more will be produced illegally?

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
You know Adron, fertilizer can be used to make a bomb. Lets ban it so it can't be used by bad guys. You know Adron, pocket knives could be used to attack a little old lady, lets ban their sale. You know Adron, a broomstick could be used to assault a neighbor over the placement of a garbage can, lets ban the sale of brooms. You know Adron, a car could be used to run over your cheating wife and her lover, so lets ban cars. Gasoline too, that could be used to burn down the high-school bullies house.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
I am personally done with this entire thread. The liberal propaganda that blinds you from facts seems to be too strong for even the most empirical evidence to break.

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

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
Adron, I certainly hope that your life is never threatened by an armed attacker, but if it is, I hope your good friends the cops are right next to you to take care of it. Otherwise, you're toast.

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
Me, I'll take my personal safety into my own hands. Millions of lives are saved by civillians having firearms. If one less woman is brutally raped and murdered thanks to me and my gun, then it is all worth it.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-What dream world do you live in? You can't stop criminals from having weapons. You can't. If you think you can you are wrong.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-You have proven my point about the police for me Adron. They can't be everywhere all the time. This is why people should have the means to defend themselves from armed attackers. How would you feel if your family was brutally murdered because you couldn't defend them? Would you just suck it up? I don't think so.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-Removing ones ability to protect themselves and their families is morally wrong. I don't care if its a knife or a gun. You don't have the guts to look a man in the eye who saved his family from being brutally murdered and tell him he was wrong, and you know it.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-You're saying that I can defend myself unless it involves killing the man who wants to kill me? I have the right to live, and I will defend that right at all costs. ALL people have that right.

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

Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being. An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-I have no right to fire on anybody for knocking on my door. If they force their way into my home and I give them due warning then by law I have the right to take them down before they can take me down.

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

That is absurd Adron. If somebody was threatening to kill you and your family I sure hope you have the guts to take them down. The law to kill in pure self defense is a human right.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-I agree that convicted criminals and the clinically insane should not have firearms. However, they attain the illegally. The lawful should not be defenseless, which is, if you had your way, how you would render them.

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

In American society millions would die because of the laws you support. Live with that. Do you have the guts to walk up to the mother of a young boy murdered by an attacker and say "It's okay-- it'll work out for the best in a decade or so."? I didn't think so.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-I know where I live getting any number of drugs could be done in less than a half hour. Its not like its exceedingly difficult to acquire illegal substances.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
-Fine, destroy the guns. You don't think more will be produced illegally?

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

It only takes one more to end the life of your family.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
You know Adron, fertilizer can be used to make a bomb. Lets ban it so it can't be used by bad guys. You know Adron, pocket knives could be used to attack a little old lady, lets ban their sale. You know Adron, a broomstick could be used to assault a neighbor over the placement of a garbage can, lets ban the sale of brooms. You know Adron, a car could be used to run over your cheating wife and her lover, so lets ban cars. Gasoline too, that could be used to burn down the high-school bullies house.

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

Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
I am personally done with this entire thread. The liberal propaganda that blinds you from facts seems to be too strong for even the most empirical evidence to break.

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

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

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

There is no empirical evidence to support either side of the idea gun control would work in the United States. You can't prove to me it would work Adron. I can simply point out the ideas of professional criminologists, which I have sited multiple times.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
Adron, I certainly hope that your life is never threatened by an armed attacker, but if it is, I hope your good friends the cops are right next to you to take care of it. Otherwise, you're toast.

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

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

This just shows how you know nothing about the rules of engagment. You can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your big screen, you can't even pull out your gun. The law clearly states that the only time you may draw and then fire a weapon is when you feel that the your life or the lives of others is in immediate and grave danger. If you don't give yourself the chance of defending yourself, you're toast.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:43 AM

Quote from: Hazard on March 05, 2004, 08:08 PM
Me, I'll take my personal safety into my own hands. Millions of lives are saved by civillians having firearms. If one less woman is brutally raped and murdered thanks to me and my gun, then it is all worth it.

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

Are you claiming that a woman who has a fire arm is likely to have it taken from her and used against her? If so please say so, I'll enjoy this.

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Guns are illegal in Britain for example. Does that stop all gun crime? The answer is no. So how are you not wrong?

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

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

PS: Actually, I'll add this:

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Guns are illegal in Britain for example. Does that stop all gun crime? The answer is no. So how are you not wrong?

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Oh I get it now. You're against leveling the playing field. You improve the odds of stopping an attacker when you are armed, its as simple as that. I would note that the perpetrator almost certainly attained the gun illegally, so gun control wouldn't be a factor. I would also hope that this wouldn't happen, that my family would protect itself. Or should I just hope the cops get there on time? Right...

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
I have the guts to walk up to that woman and say that she was dead wrong in her care of the firearm, and while her childs death is tragic, one can only blame the gun owner for failing to properly care for his or her firearm.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
That is absurd Adron. If somebody was threatening to kill you and your family I sure hope you have the guts to take them down. The law to kill in pure self defense is a human right.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
In American society millions would die because of the laws you support. Live with that. Do you have the guts to walk up to the mother of a young boy murdered by an attacker and say "It's okay-- it'll work out for the best in a decade or so."? I didn't think so.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Taking down a hand full of street dealers won't end the drug ring Adron.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
There is no empirical evidence to support either side of the idea gun control would work in the United States. You can't prove to me it would work Adron. I can simply point out the ideas of professional criminologists, which I have sited multiple times.

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
This just shows how you know nothing about the rules of engagment. You can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your big screen, you can't even pull out your gun. The law clearly states that the only time you may draw and then fire a weapon is when you feel that the your life or the lives of others is in immediate and grave danger. If you don't give yourself the chance of defending yourself, you're toast.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Are you claiming that a woman who has a fire arm is likely to have it taken from her and used against her? If so please say so, I'll enjoy this.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Oh I get it now. You're against leveling the playing field. You improve the odds of stopping an attacker when you are armed, its as simple as that. I would note that the perpetrator almost certainly attained the gun illegally, so gun control wouldn't be a factor. I would also hope that this wouldn't happen, that my family would protect itself. Or should I just hope the cops get there on time? Right...

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
I have the guts to walk up to that woman and say that she was dead wrong in her care of the firearm, and while her childs death is tragic, one can only blame the gun owner for failing to properly care for his or her firearm.

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

Guns will cause innocent casualties. Also in the hands of criminals. I have the right to shoot at someone who shoots at me.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being.

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

If somebody shoots at me or attacks me I have the right to save my life by any means neccessary.  You'd like to say that I don't? Just how ignorant to the truth about life are you?

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?

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

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

Even though he is going to kill me, I cant kill him? HELLO ADRON. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! Survival of the fittest.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
That is absurd Adron. If somebody was threatening to kill you and your family I sure hope you have the guts to take them down. The law to kill in pure self defense is a human right.

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

Sure it is.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
In American society millions would die because of the laws you support. Live with that. Do you have the guts to walk up to the mother of a young boy murdered by an attacker and say "It's okay-- it'll work out for the best in a decade or so."? I didn't think so.

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

If you want to talk about accidental shootings lets talk about them. 1% of all shooting fatalities in the United States are by somebody shooting themselves and about another 2% are cases of mistaken identities, this is all by civilian shooters. 10% of all shooting fatalities by police are cases of mistaken identity, and 3% of police shot were shot by their OWN GUNS.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.

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

You're willing to risk a much more realistic situation Adron?

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.

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

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

You make analogies that aren't even close to the same thing Adron. It will take an armed man to stop an armed man, its that simple.

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
There is no empirical evidence to support either side of the idea gun control would work in the United States. You can't prove to me it would work Adron. I can simply point out the ideas of professional criminologists, which I have sited multiple times.

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

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

The only evidence you and your cohorts are offering me hasn't even been sited. What do you want to bet they are from liberal organizations? Are you saying that the NRA and the FBI fudge their results to support guns? You have no logical argument. You're saying that we should change the world to a Utopian society where nobody needs guns. You're saying that nobody has the right to defend their life if it means ending the life of an attacker. Lets all hold hands and sing happpy songs!

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
This just shows how you know nothing about the rules of engagment. You can't shoot somebody for trying to steal your big screen, you can't even pull out your gun. The law clearly states that the only time you may draw and then fire a weapon is when you feel that the your life or the lives of others is in immediate and grave danger. If you don't give yourself the chance of defending yourself, you're toast.

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

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

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Are you claiming that a woman who has a fire arm is likely to have it taken from her and used against her? If so please say so, I'll enjoy this.

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

If a woman saves herself from being raped and murdered, how is that bad? Do you think rapists prefer their targets armed or disarmed? Women can shoot too Adron.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM
Let's take the points here one at a time.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM
One can blame the society for allowing the gun owner to have that gun. Everyone is flawed, and guns will always cause innocent casualties. You must weigh the amount of innocent casualties against the advantage a gun (doesn't) give you in an encounter with a criminal. From Arta's figures, it seems that guns are much much much more often bad than good, so the decision should be easy to make.

Guns will cause innocent casualties. Also in the hands of criminals. I have the right to shoot at someone who shoots at me.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Thats not an example of defending yourself at all costs, thats an example of being a sick human being.

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

If somebody shoots at me or attacks me I have the right to save my life by any means neccessary.  You'd like to say that I don't? Just how ignorant to the truth about life are you?

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
An example Adron: A man kicks down my door with a baseball bat screaming he is going to kill me. I don't have the right to stop him by any means neccessary?

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

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

Even though he is going to kill me, I cant kill him? HELLO ADRON. WELCOME TO REAL LIFE! Survival of the fittest.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM
You are probably right. It is likely that eventually millions would have died because of the laws I support. By the same time, it's likely that billions would have been saved by those same laws. So gun control is a good thing.

If you want to talk about accidental shootings lets talk about them. 1% of all shooting fatalities in the United States are by somebody shooting themselves and about another 2% are cases of mistaken identities, this is all by civilian shooters. 10% of all shooting fatalities by police are cases of mistaken identity, and 3% of police shot were shot by their OWN GUNS.

Where do you find these numbers?

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
It only takes one more to end the life of your family.

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

You're willing to risk a much more realistic situation Adron?

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM

Quote from: Hazard on March 06, 2004, 06:28 AM
Taking away the worlds most effective means of defense would be going too far Adron. Guns are a useful tool, just as knives and broomsticks.

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

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

You make analogies that aren't even close to the same thing Adron. It will take an armed man to stop an armed man, its that simple.

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM
Lacking empirical evidence, what I'm looking for is logical arguments. Your own logical arguments preferably. If you have any.

The only evidence you and your cohorts are offering me hasn't even been sited. What do you want to bet they are from liberal organizations?

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM
Are you saying that the NRA and the FBI fudge their results to support guns?

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM
You have no logical argument. You're saying that we should change the world to a Utopian society where nobody needs guns. You're saying that nobody has the right to defend their life if it means ending the life of an attacker. Lets all hold hands and sing happpy songs!

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM

Quote from: Adron on March 06, 2004, 05:03 PM
The reason your life is in danger is in most cases that the robber is afraid of you. Not having a gun will save your life, having a gun will kill you. If a robber approaches you on the street with a knife in his hand, demanding your wallet, would you give him your wallet or pull out your gun?

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

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM
If a woman saves herself from being raped and murdered, how is that bad? Do you think rapists prefer their targets armed or disarmed? Women can shoot too Adron.

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

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

Quote from: Hazard on March 07, 2004, 12:19 PM
The fact is Adron that you are a liberal so biased against weapons from total ignorance about them that you can't accept the truth that guns are useful tools. You have absolutly no firearms experience. You were probably raised in a home where mommy and daddy condemned gun ownership and use. Form your own opinions, learn all the facts, not just your "22 times more likely" argument, then come to a rational conclusion about the need for people to defend themselves. Until then, stop wasting your time and mine as well.

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

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

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


Edit: fixed broken quote

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