Split off gun debate

[Hazard]

You're making the assumption he is wrong. I call you arrogant, because I believe you are wrong. I call myself confident, because I believe I am right.

I call you arrogant because you're so convinced about things that when you are wrong you never change your mind about them anyway.

You haven't proven me wrong on anything, so how can you assume such things?

In fact, Adron, the only thing that you have managed to prove is that I don't agree with almost anything you say. You've proven I don't share your opinions.

[Adron]

I call you arrogant because you're so convinced about things that when you are wrong you never change your mind about them anyway.

You haven't proven me wrong on anything, so how can you assume such things?

In fact, Adron, the only thing that you have managed to prove is that I don't agree with almost anything you say. You've proven I don't share your opinions.

Actually, I believe I have proven you wrong on things, you've just never admitted it.

[Arta]

I concur. The guns debate comes to mind.

[Hazard]

The debate on guns is totally opinionated. If you want to talk about not being able to admit when one is wrong, you should consider it yourself. You haven't proven anything to me, ever. You think you have. All you have done is proven that there are some facts that support your opinions and refuse to accept facts that support mine.

On top of all of that, Adron refuses to accept the fact that when you outlaw firearms, criminals will not only still have them but it will and has in the past emboldened them to commit violent crimes with them. Its not my fault that Adron is a idealistic moron that can't accept the reality of the human condition.

[Adron]

On top of all of that, Adron refuses to accept the fact that when you outlaw firearms, criminals will not only still have them but it will and has in the past emboldened them to commit violent crimes with them. Its not my fault that Adron is a idealistic moron that can't accept the reality of the human condition.

I've always accepted the fact that a few criminals will still have guns after they're outlawed. We've debated the numbers endlessly, and you seem reluctant to realize that criminals are more likely to get guns and commit violent crimes with them when guns are "freely" available.

[Hazard]

On top of all of that, Adron refuses to accept the fact that when you outlaw firearms, criminals will not only still have them but it will and has in the past emboldened them to commit violent crimes with them. Its not my fault that Adron is a idealistic moron that can't accept the reality of the human condition.

I've always accepted the fact that a few criminals will still have guns after they're outlawed. We've debated the numbers endlessly, and you seem reluctant to realize that criminals are more likely to get guns and commit violent crimes with them when guns are "freely" available.

But they are not "freely" available as you suggest. I posed the question before and I'll pose it again, would you attack somebody if you were unaware whether or not they had a gun? Guns must be had by the public for protection, and thats the end of it. It would be no more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun contral than in a society with our current laws.

[quasi-modo]

Adron, whenever we post links to things that are in our favor you say it is biased... like the links you provide are not.

[Adron]

Adron, whenever we post links to things that are in our favor you say it is biased... like the links you provide are not.

If you post links to articles by an association of gun owners (NRA) or something similar, I'll say it's biased. If you post links to some .gov site like FBI or to other organizations that don't proclaim a strong standpoint for or against guns I won't say they're biased.

[Adron]

But they are not "freely" available as you suggest. I posed the question before and I'll pose it again, would you attack somebody if you were unaware whether or not they had a gun? Guns must be had by the public for protection, and thats the end of it. It would be no more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun contral than in a society with our current laws.

They are "freelier" available than here    And yes, it's more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun control. And finally, a criminal who thinks his victim might have a gun will have to get a gun for himself.

If I needed money bad enough and was of the type that I'd try to steal it from someone, I'd attack somebody even if I was unaware whether or not they had a gun. If I thought they'd probably have a gun, I'd make sure I had a gun myself, and that I had it pointed at them before arousing them. If they tried to pull their gun, I'd have to kill them in self-defence. If I'm in a place where people in general don't have guns, I might settle for a knife or some similar weapon.

The worst possible situation for me would be if my victim had a gun and I didn't, but this isn't likely to happen anywhere. The worst possible situation for my victim would be if I had a gun and thought they had a gun, and this is likely to happen in America.

You have to realize that if it gets to shooting, someone will be hurt. That's a bad thing. And it's much more likely the victim getting hurt than the robber.

[Hazard]

Adron, whenever we post links to things that are in our favor you say it is biased... like the links you provide are not.

If you post links to articles by an association of gun owners (NRA) or something similar, I'll say it's biased. If you post links to some .gov site like FBI or to other organizations that don't proclaim a strong standpoint for or against guns I won't say they're biased.

I gave you statistics from the FBI and the ATF and you dismissed them with your own opinions.

[Hazard]

But they are not "freely" available as you suggest. I posed the question before and I'll pose it again, would you attack somebody if you were unaware whether or not they had a gun? Guns must be had by the public for protection, and thats the end of it. It would be no more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun contral than in a society with our current laws.

They are "freelier" available than here    And yes, it's more difficult for a criminal to get a gun in a society with total gun control. And finally, a criminal who thinks his victim might have a gun will have to get a gun for himself.

If I needed money bad enough and was of the type that I'd try to steal it from someone, I'd attack somebody even if I was unaware whether or not they had a gun. If I thought they'd probably have a gun, I'd make sure I had a gun myself, and that I had it pointed at them before arousing them. If they tried to pull their gun, I'd have to kill them in self-defence. If I'm in a place where people in general don't have guns, I might settle for a knife or some similar weapon.

The worst possible situation for me would be if my victim had a gun and I didn't, but this isn't likely to happen anywhere. The worst possible situation for my victim would be if I had a gun and thought they had a gun, and this is likely to happen in America.

You have to realize that if it gets to shooting, someone will be hurt. That's a bad thing. And it's much more likely the victim getting hurt than the robber.

-It will be no more difficult for a criminal to go out and illegally buy a gun in a "gun-free" society than in the current society, and thats a fact.

-Criminals will always have weapons Adron. The fact is that the people have the right to protect themselves. If you don't agree with that, then you're just stupid and thats all there is to it. This is not a debatable fact.

-You might have that weapon traned on me, but what happens when a witness who is carrying a concealed weapon gets the jump on you and plants two in your chest and one in your skull before you knew he was there?

-Not everybody has the time to train themselves in the art of knives, and I'm sure you haven't.

-Well, I can tell you for sure that if I am ever a victim, I'll be packing the heater.

-The point is that a criminal will have to keep guessing. Consider this, a rapist on the streets of New York sees an intended victim. If he knows that woman is unarmed, what are the odds that he backs off in fear for his safety? If there is a chance that woman is carrying a Sig-Sauer .9mm handgun, do you think that maybe he might consider that? If criminals know for a fact that their victims aren't carrying guns, all hell will break loose because all the victims in the world will be completely unarmed and totally defenseless. Thats right Adron, your plan is to render us all defenseless.

-Sure people getting hurt is a bad thing, but who should it happen to? The innocent victim, or the violent criminal? If you can't answer that question in favor of the victim, you are a hopeless bleeding-heart liberal and overbearing idealist so out of touch with reality that you don't even deserve the right to express your opinions.

-I'd like to see your EVIDENCE to back up your "most likely to be the armed victim" statement. Because according to the Hillsborough County Sherriff, that is surely not the case.

[Zakath]

It will be no more difficult for a criminal to go out and illegally buy a gun in a "gun-free" society than in the current society, and thats a fact.

This is not a fact. Not only do I see no proof to back up your statement, BOTH real world evidence and logic say otherwise. I believe Adron has already explained this to you, but you refuse to accept it.

[Adron]

-It will be no more difficult for a criminal to go out and illegally buy a gun in a "gun-free" society than in the current society, and thats a fact.

-Criminals will always have weapons Adron. The fact is that the people have the right to protect themselves. If you don't agree with that, then you're just stupid and thats all there is to it. This is not a debatable fact.

-You might have that weapon traned on me, but what happens when a witness who is carrying a concealed weapon gets the jump on you and plants two in your chest and one in your skull before you knew he was there?

-Not everybody has the time to train themselves in the art of knives, and I'm sure you haven't.

-Well, I can tell you for sure that if I am ever a victim, I'll be packing the heater.

-The point is that a criminal will have to keep guessing. Consider this, a rapist on the streets of New York sees an intended victim. If he knows that woman is unarmed, what are the odds that he backs off in fear for his safety? If there is a chance that woman is carrying a Sig-Sauer .9mm handgun, do you think that maybe he might consider that? If criminals know for a fact that their victims aren't carrying guns, all hell will break loose because all the victims in the world will be completely unarmed and totally defenseless. Thats right Adron, your plan is to render us all defenseless.

-Sure people getting hurt is a bad thing, but who should it happen to? The innocent victim, or the violent criminal? If you can't answer that question in favor of the victim, you are a hopeless bleeding-heart liberal and overbearing idealist so out of touch with reality that you don't even deserve the right to express your opinions.

-I'd like to see your EVIDENCE to back up your "most likely to be the armed victim" statement. Because according to the Hillsborough County Sherriff, that is surely not the case.

#1: I don't agree with you, and I'd like to hear why you believe what you say is true. Unless you've defined what a "gun-free" society is exactly, it could be defined as a society where there exist no handguns anywhere, in which case your statement is obviously false.

#2: It follows from #1 that criminals may not always have handguns. Yes, they will virtually always have weapons, since fists are weapons. You make the simple claim "people have the right to protect themselves". It needs more qualification. If what you're saying is: "people have the right to protect themselves at any cost", I dispute it, and that doesn't make me stupid.

#3: If that happens, I lose. But if you want to bring in more people into the equation, you'll also have to consider my gang who's hiding out in the shadows around and nails your witness as soon as he moves.....

#4: No, not everybody does, just like not everybody has the time to train themselves in the art of handguns. Relevance?

#5: That's something that remains to be seen. You cannot make such a claim, so I'd suggest you don't.

#6: You're wrong because other countries have laws against guns and all hell hasn't broken loose. Please don't make that claim again unless you can first counter that argument.

#7: Of course it'd be better if the criminal gets hurt than the victim. However, reason implies that a robbery victim will be more likely to get hurt if there are guns involved. I invite you to some expansion on this - perhaps you'd care to picture yourself as an armed robber facing a victim you know is unarmed vs an armed robber facing a victim that may have a gun, and consider how you might act when the victim makes a sudden move for a pocket?

#8: That's just reasoning from the situation I had detailed. Sequence: a) Robber with gun in hand, pointed at victim. b) Robber knowing that victim will kill robber if victim manages to get gun out. c) Victim reaching for gun. d) Robber pulling trigger. e) Victim falling to the ground.



Edit: I had missed a point!

[quasi-modo]

Uh oh, this thread is turning into an older one... moving right along.

[Adron]

Uh oh, this thread is turning into an older one... moving right along.

I'm hoping Arta will split off the gun parts to somewhere else. Perhaps the stupid people arguing about stupid things forum.