Law Lets Floridians `Meet Force With Force'

[Hazard]

Yes?

Those are all countries with total gun control that STILL have a problem with gun violence. Explain?

Well, maybe you don't need guns to save lives in the United States?

So what you're saying is there is a better tool for the job? What might that be? Super powers?

Well, the argument goes like this: Reflexes are actions that are initiated "automatically", before a nerve impulse has actually been processed by the brain. Your claim is that your reflexes will make you shoot and kill someone who surprises you. Someone who surprises you may not necessarily be there to hurt you in any way, but the level of nerve-interaction involved in a reflex is insufficient to determine that (think tap on knee = kicking leg). If that is the case, you will have committed homicide - conclusion: Good example of why people should not have guns.

Drawing is a reflex. Firing is a decision, one that must be made in a split second. My claim is that if you attacked me with a knife I'd have you down before I knew what I was doing. Someone who suprises me may certainly not be armed, and in an average situation I would not draw on them. Now if I'm walking him through Centro Ybor, a popular party spot in Tampa Bay, and I'm suddenly suprised by somebody I don't know in a not-so-well-light area I might draw and, given the appropriate circumstances, fire. I can use your same ridiculous criteria to take any useful tool and make it seem like the root of all evil.

I'll try to remember to point you to it the next time someone posts a link to some journalist that was fired for writing something "unpatriotic".

A decision made of who to hire and who to fire, in my country, is not made by the government. I don't know how things work behind the new iron curtain that is socialist Sweden, but in this country those decisions belong to the owners of the journals. There are thousands of columnists in this country who are always speaking out against the current government and its leaders (i.e Repblicans [they're sore losers]) and nothing becomes of them.

Michael Moore is rich enough I guess. Hmm. I suppose I need to rethink that statement. In a capitalist country like the USA, only those who are rich and wealthy can publish all truths?

What is it that you're getting at? You've changed your argument because you see that you were wrong. At first you said that we slay those who don't agree, then they get fired, then they can say whatever if they are rich. You obviously know nothing, so why do you keep talking?

Actually, I'd rather have no crime. You're seeking the society where you have to be on your edge all the time to defend yourself. I'm seeking the one where you don't have to.

I'm in reality. In this world, Adron, rights have to be protected. There are some twisted and evil people, many of them were European as a matter of fact, who want nothing more than to strip the rights of others. Now we have two options. We can do it your way and just roll over and let them fuck us in the ass, or we can fight back. What would happen if we were all like you? For one thing, you'd be speaking only German and giving your salutations to the furher.

No. I just never took a big interest in guns.

Good, so we are agreed that you have no basis for your opinion on weapons due to the fact that you are admittedly ignorant as to their purposes and their function.

Because I'm older than you.

Clever, but not.

I prefer not producing biased reading material.

So basically, you have no evidence to back up anything that you say?

I don't like biased reading material much at all.

So how did you get your facts and come to your conclusions?

I have given numbers at times.

I can't see any. Cite some sources? Remember, non-biased sources only.

I'm not sure what numbers you'd like though.

By your own standards, numbers that originated from a completely non-biased source and documented on a non-biased website with a non-biased slant.

There obviously aren't any numbers from a USA without guns, since there is none yet.

And there never will be!

Besides, most of the claims I make are just simple ones, such as: If there are no guns, there will be no gun-related crimes.

But you have no evidence to back up what you are saying. We've been down this road before. Its your opinion. In my opinion, the Bible is accurate and you will be damned for blasphemy, but you don't accept that as true. Why should I accept what you say is true?

Basic logic.

Basic logic once dictated that the Earth was a) flat and b) the center of the universe.

[Adron]

Yes?

Those are all countries with total gun control that STILL have a problem with gun violence. Explain?

Those are countries striving for total gun control, but not yet having reached perfection, partly due to other imports from countries that don't have much gun control at all.

Well, maybe you don't need guns to save lives in the United States?

So what you're saying is there is a better tool for the job? What might that be? Super powers?

Have discussed that before, in other threads. If you want to discuss it, dedicate a thread to it.

Well, the argument goes like this: Reflexes are actions that are initiated "automatically", before a nerve impulse has actually been processed by the brain. Your claim is that your reflexes will make you shoot and kill someone who surprises you. Someone who surprises you may not necessarily be there to hurt you in any way, but the level of nerve-interaction involved in a reflex is insufficient to determine that (think tap on knee = kicking leg). If that is the case, you will have committed homicide - conclusion: Good example of why people should not have guns.

Drawing is a reflex. Firing is a decision, one that must be made in a split second. My claim is that if you attacked me with a knife I'd have you down before I knew what I was doing. Someone who suprises me may certainly not be armed, and in an average situation I would not draw on them. Now if I'm walking him through Centro Ybor, a popular party spot in Tampa Bay, and I'm suddenly suprised by somebody I don't know in a not-so-well-light area I might draw and, given the appropriate circumstances, fire. I can use your same ridiculous criteria to take any useful tool and make it seem like the root of all evil.

Well, considering the "have you down before I knew what I was doing", I'd say you're not making a conscious decision, and so you're prone to making mistakes. Was that a knife blade you saw, or was it a reflex from some jewellry? By the time you know, you may be a murderer. Or you may be dead.

I'll try to remember to point you to it the next time someone posts a link to some journalist that was fired for writing something "unpatriotic".

A decision made of who to hire and who to fire, in my country, is not made by the government. I don't know how things work behind the new iron curtain that is socialist Sweden, but in this country those decisions belong to the owners of the journals. There are thousands of columnists in this country who are always speaking out against the current government and its leaders (i.e Repblicans [they're sore losers]) and nothing becomes of them.

I wasn't saying the censorship was done by the American government. I said it was done by the American society.

Michael Moore is rich enough I guess. Hmm. I suppose I need to rethink that statement. In a capitalist country like the USA, only those who are rich and wealthy can publish all truths?

What is it that you're getting at? You've changed your argument because you see that you were wrong. At first you said that we slay those who don't agree, then they get fired, then they can say whatever if they are rich. You obviously know nothing, so why do you keep talking?

You're obviously not thinking, so why do I bother trying to shine a light into your world? I don't know... Well, I guess what I'm getting at is how censorship permeates the American society. The ridiculous beeps in TV shows is a really basic example of it. People being deemed unpatriotic another. And then the glazing of the cake is how if you have enough money, you can get away with anything, even being unpatriotic!

Actually, I'd rather have no crime. You're seeking the society where you have to be on your edge all the time to defend yourself. I'm seeking the one where you don't have to.

I'm in reality. In this world, Adron, rights have to be protected. There are some twisted and evil people, many of them were European as a matter of fact, who want nothing more than to strip the rights of others. Now we have two options. We can do it your way and just roll over and let them fuck us in the ass, or we can fight back. What would happen if we were all like you? For one thing, you'd be speaking only German and giving your salutations to the furher.

Actually, if we were all like me, you'd be speaking Swedish and making sense. But apart from that, yes, rights have to be protected. The debated issue is whether protecting rights should be handled by trained professionals or by amateurs.

No. I just never took a big interest in guns.

Good, so we are agreed that you have no basis for your opinion on weapons due to the fact that you are admittedly ignorant as to their purposes and their function.

No. I am knowledgeable as to their purposes and their function. Further, I'd say knowledge of the function of weapons is irrelevant to having an opinion on weapons. Feel free to make a thread about why that would be required.

I prefer not producing biased reading material.

So basically, you have no evidence to back up anything that you say?

I have evidence to back up that which can be backed up by evidence. I have logically sound reasonings for that which neither you nor I can prove or disprove with the available facts.

I don't like biased reading material much at all.

So how did you get your facts and come to your conclusions?

Conclusions, I mostly come to myself. Facts, I gleaned from all over the place. Including some biased reading materials. Have you ever tried just looking at facts and drawing your own conclusions instead of listening to someone else's propaganda?

I have given numbers at times.

I can't see any. Cite some sources? Remember, non-biased sources only.

I'm not finding the old gun control threads now. Here's a source I'd consider unbiased for things like number of gun-related homicides: site

I'm not sure what numbers you'd like though.

By your own standards, numbers that originated from a completely non-biased source and documented on a non-biased website with a non-biased slant.

OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154. Point: People get upset over some argument and kill someone using their handgun more than ten times as often as they kill a criminal with their handgun.

There obviously aren't any numbers from a USA without guns, since there is none yet.

And there never will be!

That, you don't know.

Besides, most of the claims I make are just simple ones, such as: If there are no guns, there will be no gun-related crimes.

But you have no evidence to back up what you are saying. We've been down this road before. Its your opinion. In my opinion, the Bible is accurate and you will be damned for blasphemy, but you don't accept that as true. Why should I accept what you say is true?

Because it's obviously true. Even you should be able to realize that if there are no guns, there is no way guns can be used in crimes?

Basic logic.

Basic logic once dictated that the Earth was a) flat and b) the center of the universe.

Yup. Then people looked further, and revised their premises. The argument against the earth being flat wasn't: "It's round. It IS round. It is round too!". To argue against the earth being flat, find a case where the earth being flat doesn't fit observations. Then you'll be getting somewhere.

[Hazard]

So what you're saying is, it is a definite possibility that you are completely wrong and guns really are the answer, since you obviously don't have enough information for your ignorant judgments?

[Adron]

So what you're saying is, it is a definite possibility that you are completely wrong and guns really are the answer, since you obviously don't have enough information for your ignorant judgments?

For my ignorant judgments, I don't have enough information. Luckily, the judgments in this thread typically aren't ignorant, and so my judgements are very accurate while yours are wrong.

Of course, a few conclusions depend upon numerical facts and interpretation of those facts. One example is the conclusion about how a gun is ten times more likely to be used wrong than right. It's possible that guns are actually used wrong much more often than that. I didn't sum up all the possibilities, I just did a rough estimate. Still, it's good enough to form a base for discussions.

[Hazard]

Those are countries striving for total gun control, but not yet having reached perfection, partly due to other imports from countries that don't have much gun control at all.

You should do your research. The US does not export weapons to any of those countries.

Well, considering the "have you down before I knew what I was doing", I'd say you're not making a conscious decision, and so you're prone to making mistakes.

In a situation where I'd be forced to do it, there would be little chance of a mistake. I'm referring to martial arts. If you ask for my wallet and my watch in a dark alley, what exactly are the odds that its just a misunderstanding?

I wasn't saying the censorship was done by the American government. I said it was done by the American society.

Oh, so what you're saying is that its wrong for companies to have opinions?

Actually, if we were all like me, you'd be speaking Swedish and making sense. But apart from that, yes, rights have to be protected. The debated issue is whether protecting rights should be handled by trained professionals or by amateurs.

Volunteer firefighters are a good example of amateurs doing the job that professionals can't get to. Why should I rely on the police to do a job that I can do myself? If there is a guy in my house trying to get to my family, should I dial 911 and sit around for 8-10 minutes before help can arrive, leaving the definite possibility the armed assailant could end up inside my home and kill my family? Do you know how stupid you sound?

No. I am knowledgeable as to their purposes and their function.

Obviously not, because you believe that there is no practical use for firearms and any assertion that there is would be "illogical" because note verybody thinks like a Vulcan.

I have evidence to back up that which can be backed up by evidence. I have logically sound reasonings for that which neither you nor I can prove or disprove with the available facts.

Logic is based on facts. Show me your facts!

Conclusions, I mostly come to myself. Facts, I gleaned from all over the place. Including some biased reading materials. Have you ever tried just looking at facts and drawing your own conclusions instead of listening to someone else's propaganda?

So you HAVE just made them up! Even you admit that your facts are anti-gun biased!

OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154. Point: People get upset over some argument and kill someone using their handgun more than ten times as often as they kill a criminal with their handgun.

We've been here before. How many of those weapons were legally obtained? Another question, does your research have the number of lives that were saved by a civillian carrying a firearm? Of course not! Because that would show the positive side wouldn't it?

That, you don't know.

Yes I do. As Leonidas said "Come and get them."

Because it's obviously true. Even you should be able to realize that if there are no guns, there is no way guns can be used in crimes?

And another horrifying thing would rise up in its place. You think people are going to give up being evil because they don't have their gun?

[Hazard]

OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154. Point: People get upset over some argument and kill someone using their handgun more than ten times as often as they kill a criminal with their handgun.

We've been here before. How many of those weapons were legally obtained? Another question, does your research have the number of lives that were saved by a civillian carrying a firearm? Of course not! Because that would show the positive side wouldn't it?

Fortunately for all of us who enjoy the truth, I've done my own research, unless of course you intend to once again try to impeach my sources as "biased."

According to research done by Senator Larry Craig (Republican, Idaho) on the date of June 12, 2000, in the previous year 40,000 Americans credited the use of firearms had saved their own lives or the lives of others. The source is cited as the United States Department of Justice. Is the Justice Department censoring my facts in a big conspiracy Adron, or is that okay for you?

[GaiDaL]

Volunteer firefighters are a good example of amateurs doing the job that professionals can't get to. Why should I rely on the police to do a job that I can do myself? If there is a guy in my house trying to get to my family, should I dial 911 and sit around for 8-10 minutes before help can arrive, leaving the definite possibility the armed assailant could end up inside my home and kill my family? Do you know how stupid you sound?

You're just proposing to treat the symptoms, not the cause.  If we really want to rid ourselves of armed crime altogether, we would get rid of the arms...  Fight fire with fire and everything burns down.

[Hazard]

GaiDaL that is in fact not true. How do you put out a fire on an oil derrick for example? Thats okay if you don't know, I'll enlighten you.

Its a tricky and dangerous process for starters. I'll start by posing a quesiton, what does a fire need to survive? Fuel and oxygen. Obviously on an oil field you can't take away the fuel, but you sure as hell can remove the oxygen. What is the solution I wonder? Well, a large boom arm will swing over the fire and stay in place. Then, somebody trained in the usage of explosives will plant a large quantity of C4 or dynamite or the appropriate charge directly over the fire. You set off an explosion, remove all of the oxygen in the ensuing fireball, the fire in the oil derrick is starved, and presto, fire is out. You certainly can fight fire and fire.

[Arta]

According to research done by Senator Larry Craig (Republican, Idaho) on the date of June 12, 2000, in the previous year 40,000 Americans credited the use of firearms had saved their own lives or the lives of others. The source is cited as the United States Department of Justice. Is the Justice Department censoring my facts in a big conspiracy Adron, or is that okay for you?

That's not a reliable statistic. How many of those people were right? How many of them were lying, or exaggerating to support a point they already believe in? Who are those 40,000 people? Do they constitute a representative sample?

And, if you're going to bring statistics into it, why not comment on the ones Adron posted:

OK. Handgun murders over random arguments, occurring in the USA in 2002: 1726. Justifiable homicides by people carrying a handgun in the USA in 2002: 154.

What do you say to the argument that this shows that although gun possession is sometimes good, it is bad in the majority of cases? And thus, gun posession does more harm than good?

I also feel I should call you on your incorrect assertion that the UK has 'total gun control'. It does not. I can't comment for the other countries you mention, but I doubt they do either.

[Hazard]

That's not a reliable statistic. How many of those people were right? How many of them were lying, or exaggerating to support a point they already believe in? Who are those 40,000 people? Do they constitute a representative sample?

Do you have evidence to the contrary? I trust the US DJ when it comes to that sort of research.

[Arta]

If you've got a link to the original study, i'd be interested to see what it says about how the data was collected. This situation is exactly the reason why people should cite their sources if they want to appear credible: a blind quote is not useful. Such things are apocryphal more often than not, and often just made up, or at least misconstrued. Just look at that nonsense Quasi posted about Australian gun laws.

[MyndFyre]

You're just proposing to treat the symptoms, not the cause.  If we really want to rid ourselves of armed crime altogether, we would get rid of the arms...  Fight fire with fire and everything burns down.

So....  You're saying that if the US bans guns, that there would be no guns in the US?

We wouldn't need to have law enforcement if everyone followed the laws.  That's why the root word of "enforcement" is "force."

[Hazard]

Check out the Library of Congress if you want all the information on his proposal before the Senate. I gave you all of his information as well as the date, you should be able to do basic research Arta.

[Arta]

Nonsense. It's your responsibility to reference the sources you cite.

[Hazard]

The fact still remains that nobody has even come anywhere in the neighborhood of convincing me that there is a better way to defend myself and my family than with a firearm.