That's interesting. Someone voted yes. I'd be very interested in hearing the story there.
I find this statement to be funny.
Topic: Poll for Gun Control Advocates - page 11. (Read 17867 times)
I find this statement to be funny.
Maturity ≠ mental capability. Lacking one does not indicate you lack the other, and stating that someone lacks one does not imply that they lack the other.
Is that somehow better you think? Implying that I lack maturity? What if I was a gun advocate before but matured into my current position?
"Matured" into acting out of fear, rather than logic?
When you grow up, you'll realize there's no need to fear peaceful people.
Maturity ≠ mental capability. Lacking one does not indicate you lack the other, and stating that someone lacks one does not imply that they lack the other.
Is that somehow better you think? Implying that I lack maturity? What if I was a gun advocate before but matured into my current position?
This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them
You're right, guns are tools. They have a specific purpose and use. That's how cops use them too, right? They kill people every day with them, and yet you don't advocate that the cops stop carrying them, do you? When you get down to the root of the gun control argument, it's about trust. We're supposed to be able to trust men in uniform, but when these same men are wearing street clothes; whether simply off-duty or retired from service, they're no longer trustworthy? If you can't imagine yourself comfortable around someone that you know is armed & not wearing a badge, your choices involve carrying yourself to even the odds or simply advocating for government to remove firearms from the public spaces. The former requires much from you, including the responsiblity to brush up on both the law concerning justifiable use of force and the practical skills required in safely using a firearm; as well as the rather steep personal cost of obtaining the weapon to start with. The latter option is simply easier, as is doesn't require anything from you other than a vote and imposes the burden of enforcement upon the police & those who wish to carry for whatever reason. The facts remain, though, that any practical level of reducing the number of firearms in public is impossible by statutes. Firearms are very old tech, and easily produced by skilled people today, and soon enough it will be possible to print out a crude firearm on a hobby level 3D printer. And this one might actually be all plastic.
http://defensedistributed.com/
I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?
Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.
Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.
Actually, it's far easier to kill with most everything but guns. Guns make LOTS OF NOISE, and handgun fatalities are rare, according to morbidity stats. Full auto rifle fatalities at further than contact distances are also rare, when you realize that most of that lead is spraying everywhere but at the target's vital organs, if it even hits the target at all.
You only begin to approach the difficulty of killing with a gun if you are screaming like a banshee while you wield whatever silent weapon you're about to use. And yes, that even means bombs, because once they make noise, either the suicide bomber is dead (stupid suicide bombers announcing their intentions get shot in the head), or the command detonator is safely away. Smart killers (real ones, not fictional ones with 'silencers' that in real life, don't silence SHIT) use guns as a last resort, and only at the furthest imaginable distances so they minimize their chances of getting caught.
You don't have to go to Camp Peary to know this common sense shit.
This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them
Oh, you have a little master suppression technique going there. Implying that I somehow lack the mental capability to understand what you have grasped. Bravo.
Point 1.2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques
Maturity ≠ mental capability. Lacking one does not indicate you lack the other, and stating that someone lacks one does not imply that they lack the other.
This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them
Oh, you have a little master suppression technique going there. Implying that I somehow lack the mental capability to understand what you have grasped. Bravo.
Point 1.2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques
No, not really, just that I see the world differently then when I used to sound like you, Not to imply I think you are not grown up, just that I was not when I was anti-gun.
And you are so cute when you are angry.
Correct, which is what mandatory liability insurance would do. You haven't justified just having one sweeping policy for the foolish and wise alike.
Would you rather face a robber while you are armed or unarmed?
I'm not disputing American aggression. I'm disputing a causality between permissive gun laws and homocide rate, so you'd have to show how homocides decrease in jurisdictions once gun bans are enacted.
What sweeping policy have I proposed?
Quote
I have been robbed. I was unarmed and gave up what little I had on me. He got a little cash, I got away unharmed. Had I been armed I might have resisted which would have ended badly for one of us.
Do you always rely on personal anecdote to support your political beliefs? Perhaps armed AntiCap would be reflecting on how he could have been stabbed anyways. This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them
Oh, you have a little master suppression technique going there. Implying that I somehow lack the mental capability to understand what you have grasped. Bravo.
Point 1.2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques
Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
I answered your question by not answering it. I ceded the point. Yes, a violent environment makes people violent. But note that while we only see one person open carrying in the first picture, there is no reason why everyone there would not be armed, even Bongo-boy there. The situation, however, is not violent, regardless of how many people are armed, because the people are peaceful. The second picture, on the other hand, is violent, because the people with the guns are violent. A little backstory: That gentleman there with the knife was minding his own business, smoking something that "looked like a marijuana cigarette", and is simply (unsuccessfully, and unwisely) attempting to defend himself from their aggression.
"Everybody" isn't armed in that picture, only the thugs in the blue costumes are.
I get that everybody isn't armed. But that was your suggestion a few posts up, wasn't it? Arm everybody. Did I get that wrong?
Not sure how US police handles things, but if there's a law (agree or not) that you break (or not) and police comes to question you about it, and you pull a knife, you're really not defending yourself are you?
I did say it was unwise, what the man did, did I not?
And yes, my suggestion was to arm everyone, like in the first picture. Peaceful armed people do not suddenly become violent.
I agree I think like everything education is key.
Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
I answered your question by not answering it. I ceded the point. Yes, a violent environment makes people violent. But note that while we only see one person open carrying in the first picture, there is no reason why everyone there would not be armed, even Bongo-boy there. The situation, however, is not violent, regardless of how many people are armed, because the people are peaceful. The second picture, on the other hand, is violent, because the people with the guns are violent. A little backstory: That gentleman there with the knife was minding his own business, smoking something that "looked like a marijuana cigarette", and is simply (unsuccessfully, and unwisely) attempting to defend himself from their aggression.
"Everybody" isn't armed in that picture, only the thugs in the blue costumes are.
I get that everybody isn't armed. But that was your suggestion a few posts up, wasn't it? Arm everybody. Did I get that wrong?
Not sure how US police handles things, but if there's a law (agree or not) that you break (or not) and police comes to question you about it, and you pull a knife, you're really not defending yourself are you?
I did say it was unwise, what the man did, did I not?
And yes, my suggestion was to arm everyone, like in the first picture. Peaceful armed people do not suddenly become violent.
Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
I answered your question by not answering it. I ceded the point. Yes, a violent environment makes people violent. But note that while we only see one person open carrying in the first picture, there is no reason why everyone there would not be armed, even Bongo-boy there. The situation, however, is not violent, regardless of how many people are armed, because the people are peaceful. The second picture, on the other hand, is violent, because the people with the guns are violent. A little backstory: That gentleman there with the knife was minding his own business, smoking something that "looked like a marijuana cigarette", and is simply (unsuccessfully, and unwisely) attempting to defend himself from their aggression.
"Everybody" isn't armed in that picture, only the thugs in the blue costumes are.
I get that everybody isn't armed. But that was your suggestion a few posts up, wasn't it? Arm everybody. Did I get that wrong?
Not sure how US police handles things, but if there's a law (agree or not) that you break (or not) and police comes to question you about it, and you pull a knife, you're really not defending yourself are you?
I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?
Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.
Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.
Guns a tool for killing or a way to keep some dumb ass from robing me? If they know I got a gun and they come in my house to rob/rape/murder eat my munchies and they know I got a gun, it will make them think twice.
I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?
Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.
Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.
No, he also examines other countries, such as England. Crime rates went up (still low, but did increase). Read the book, or at least the wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?
Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.
Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.
This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them
I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?
Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636
States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.
Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.
Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.
I answered your question by not answering it. I ceded the point. Yes, a violent environment makes people violent. But note that while we only see one person open carrying in the first picture, there is no reason why everyone there would not be armed, even Bongo-boy there. The situation, however, is not violent, regardless of how many people are armed, because the people are peaceful. The second picture, on the other hand, is violent, because the people with the guns are violent. A little backstory: That gentleman there with the knife was minding his own business, smoking something that "looked like a marijuana cigarette", and is simply (unsuccessfully, and unwisely) attempting to defend himself from their aggression.
"Everybody" isn't armed in that picture, only the thugs in the blue costumes are.
I used to be a gun control advocate, but then I took an arrow in the knee.
Give everybody guns, violent culture fixes self.
Gonna need a mop, though.
Gonna need a mop, though.
Great solution. Make sure everyone tries to be the most violent. That will turn out well I'm sure.
It will turn out very well if we kill off the hand wringers first followed by the thugs and those who think it's cool to hold the gun sideways when you shoot it.
Society will quickly right itself and members will be polite towards each other again.
There is no such thing as peace..... If someone wants something bad enough they will take it, if it be a person or a president.
Jump to: