|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 29 2014 04:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. If we're talking logically a person with muscular dystrophy will be wheel-chair bound by 12 and more than likely dead by 22. I would probably not use that ailment as an example when trying to converse logically. Old age is a much better thing to use as an example as everyone goes through that. (Unless they die young.) Here is an example of a 93 year old grandma using a gun to save her life (well... she stopped herself from being beaten.) http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/
Are you serious right now? Did you miss the entire page of argument with Millitron about how he says he has muscular dystrophy and carries a gun not to feel helpless and vulnerable?
|
On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side.
You know that difference is completely fucking irrelevant right? You have the law on your side with or without a gun. Please try and respond to and engage with the actual argument.
|
On August 29 2014 04:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. If we're talking logically a person with muscular dystrophy will be wheel-chair bound by 12 and more than likely dead by 22. I would probably not use that ailment as an example when trying to converse logically. Old age is a much better thing to use as an example as everyone goes through that. (Unless they die young.) Here is an example of a 93 year old grandma using a gun to save her life (well... she stopped herself from being beaten.) http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/
lolololol, here are some excerpts:
“I saw her get sucker punched from behind, hard. She hit the ground, then they all start kicking her, she grabs this huge gun out of her purse and BOOM! Headshot! Game over son, ya know what I’m sayin’? Poor n*gga never had a chance.”
St. Louis Police Detective Paul Horner told CNN the ‘Knockout Game’ is extremely dangerous and needs to stop before more people get killed. “How many more of our young African American youths will have to die before it clicks in their tiny little brains not to do this stupid sh*t anymore? [...]"
I spent a bit of time reading some Missouri State Laws, and it's quite likely that a self-defense argument would hold up in court if this were real. But still! STILL! C'MON!
|
On August 29 2014 04:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. If we're talking logically a person with muscular dystrophy will be wheel-chair bound by 12 and more than likely dead by 22. I would probably not use that ailment as an example when trying to converse logically. Old age is a much better thing to use as an example as everyone goes through that. (Unless they die young.) Here is an example of a 93 year old grandma using a gun to save her life (well... she stopped herself from being beaten.) http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ I have muscular dystrophy. I turn 23 tomorrow.
Not all MD is degenerative.
On August 29 2014 09:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 04:51 Nacl(Draq) wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. If we're talking logically a person with muscular dystrophy will be wheel-chair bound by 12 and more than likely dead by 22. I would probably not use that ailment as an example when trying to converse logically. Old age is a much better thing to use as an example as everyone goes through that. (Unless they die young.) Here is an example of a 93 year old grandma using a gun to save her life (well... she stopped herself from being beaten.) http://nationalreport.net/knockout-thug-loses-game-permanently-grannys-big-gun/ Are you serious right now? Did you miss the entire page of argument with Millitron about how he says he has muscular dystrophy and carries a gun not to feel helpless and vulnerable? I don't feel vulnerable without a gun. I know the odds, and the odds are that I will not be the victim of a crime, because crime just simply isn't that common. But I do feel safer with a gun than without one, since I'm a pretty easy target should I be unlucky enough to lose those odds.
It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it after all.
|
On August 29 2014 10:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. You know that difference is completely fucking irrelevant right? You have the law on your side with or without a gun. Please try and respond to and engage with the actual argument.
You don't understand the difference between having a gun legally and using it right vs having an illegal gun and using it for crime? If I really must explain it to you, you must have a poor understanding of this topic. I notice that once more, you're resorting to immature swearing in your post. Is this how you interact with people, generally speaking? You must not be a pleasant person irl if that's how you talk to people who have different views than you.
If you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for recreation, protection or as a deterrent, then this means that you aren't misusing the gun. This in turn means that your gun isn't being a problem. Your gun isn't being used for school shooting, killing people, theft, it's not being used to threaten people or overpower others. So the gun of someone who respects the law and respects others is pretty much not being a problem. This is unlike the guns used by gangsters for example. So, in the event of your life being threatened, a law-abiding citizen with a legal gun may use that gun to preserve his life or the life of others, or their property.
In the event of confrontation between two parties, the offending party (e.g. bikers, thieves, rapists) has little reason to engage in a shoot-out. They risk being shot at and generally speaking cowards fear for their lives. In the event that they survive, the law will not protect them like it will for the other party (the law abiding citizen). This is because they misused their guns. Oftentimes, petty criminals will at least understand that they have little to gain and a lot to lose by attempting to go aggress someone (is aggress a word? wow) with a legal gun. So why would you ban law abiding citizens their right to protect themselves? They're not being vigilantes, they're not doing police work by themselves. They are merely protecting themselves.
I don't see at all how this is irrelevant. It's not like you explained to me why it was either way, all you did was swear like some 14 year old?
|
On August 29 2014 14:12 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 10:01 IgnE wrote:On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. You know that difference is completely fucking irrelevant right? You have the law on your side with or without a gun. Please try and respond to and engage with the actual argument. You don't understand the difference between having a gun legally and using it right vs having an illegal gun and using it for crime? If I really must explain it to you, you must have a poor understanding of this topic. I notice that once more, you're resorting to immature swearing in your post. Is this how you interact with people, generally speaking? You must not be a pleasant person irl if that's how you talk to people who have different views than you. If you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for recreation, protection or as a deterrent, then this means that you aren't misusing the gun. This in turn means that your gun isn't being a problem. Your gun isn't being used for school shooting, killing people, theft, it's not being used to threaten people or overpower others. So the gun of someone who respects the law and respects others is pretty much not being a problem. This is unlike the guns used by gangsters for example. So, in the event of your life being threatened, a law-abiding citizen with a legal gun may use that gun to preserve his life or the life of others, or their property. In the event of confrontation between two parties, the offending party (e.g. bikers, thieves, rapists) has little reason to engage in a shoot-out. They risk being shot at and generally speaking cowards fear for their lives. In the event that they survive, the law will not protect them like it will for the other party (the law abiding citizen). This is because they misused their guns. Oftentimes, petty criminals will at least understand that they have little to gain and a lot to lose by attempting to go aggress someone (is aggress a word? wow) with a legal gun. So why would you ban law abiding citizens their right to protect themselves? They're not being vigilantes, they're not doing police work by themselves. They are merely protecting themselves. I don't see at all how this is irrelevant. It's not like you explained to me why it was either way, all you did was swear like some 14 year old?
So basically...
Normal citizens need to own guns because criminals don't care about the law and will kill people with guns anyway.
But criminals won't use guns because they're scared of the law.
Makes sense.
|
A "petty" criminal will look to circumvent the law for his own personal gain. Theft, rape (that's not petty though), ganging up on someone. Their real goal is that personal gain, not murder. By breaking into someone's house, they steal stuff and perhaps beat up anyone there while they're at it. They'll use the physical strength to overpower a girl. Or they will use strength in numbers.
Generally speaking, these goals aren't worth risking your life over, from the criminal's point of view. So it doesn't make sense to try to fight an armed person with your own firearm. Especially since the person you're trying to steal from, beat up or rape, has the right to defend themselves. It's not worth the risk, no matter how you look at it most of the time. Petty criminals go for easy meat, so to speak. In this case, guns are a deterrent. There are many documented cases of people pulling out a firearm and ending a confrontation right on the spot. Without firing a shot, or firing a warning shot.
Finding that easy meat is risky if you know that by breaking into someone's home, you might find yourself face to face with someone armed with a shotgun who is 100% allowed to open-fire if they consider themselves in danger. You'll notice that this is more of a deterrent than it is active protection.
This obviously doesn't apply to murderers, however generally speaking people don't go from 0 to murder just like that, they have a criminal record from before, or they're mentally ill. In which case the limitations around owning a firearm come into play, since such people are generally screened in the first place. Though I'm sure there are limitations to the system.
If a criminal is going to hold someone at gunpoint, they're not going to use a legally bought weapon, since that weapon can be traced. Generally speaking, legally bought weapons aren't used for crime or killing people. Criminals use illegal weapons for that.
Legally bought weapons used by responsible people, again, aren't causing the problems which warrant them getting banned. It's obvious that sometimes legally bought weapons are misused, however they're just that: being misused. Which falls into the "illegal" category, which is not protected by the law.
|
"We need guns to defend ourselves from the guns that we need"
|
On August 29 2014 17:16 Karpfen wrote: "We need guns to defend ourselves from the guns that we need"
Yep it has always been a... circular logic? like this really. That's why among the first world countries it only happens in the USA, it's embedded in their history right from the start.
I wonder if they could use the money on making their home unbreachable instead of getting a weapon. Is it impossible or too expensive? It should not be, considering how scared they seem to be of break ins and how common they are.
|
On August 29 2014 15:57 Incognoto wrote: A "petty" criminal will look to circumvent the law for his own personal gain. Theft, rape (that's not petty though), ganging up on someone. Their real goal is that personal gain, not murder. By breaking into someone's house, they steal stuff and perhaps beat up anyone there while they're at it. They'll use the physical strength to overpower a girl. Or they will use strength in numbers.
Generally speaking, these goals aren't worth risking your life over, from the criminal's point of view. So it doesn't make sense to try to fight an armed person with your own firearm. Especially since the person you're trying to steal from, beat up or rape, has the right to defend themselves. It's not worth the risk, no matter how you look at it most of the time. Petty criminals go for easy meat, so to speak. In this case, guns are a deterrent. There are many documented cases of people pulling out a firearm and ending a confrontation right on the spot. Without firing a shot, or firing a warning shot.
Finding that easy meat is risky if you know that by breaking into someone's home, you might find yourself face to face with someone armed with a shotgun who is 100% allowed to open-fire if they consider themselves in danger. You'll notice that this is more of a deterrent than it is active protection.
This obviously doesn't apply to murderers, however generally speaking people don't go from 0 to murder just like that, they have a criminal record from before, or they're mentally ill. In which case the limitations around owning a firearm come into play, since such people are generally screened in the first place. Though I'm sure there are limitations to the system.
Again, we're not talking about a small group of people threatening you. The situation is a violent gang of 20 people already beating you up. The mentality is entirely different from one person trying to mug you.
Granted, it would be my natural reaction to try and defend myself as well, and if I had a gun on me, I'd probably want to draw it. Speaking purely from probability, though, I'd put good odds on multiple people getting shot and seriously injured, me included, over all 20 assailants turning tail and running.
It's the same reason why banks capitulate to armed robbers' demands every time. Even if the security guards have guns and are well trained, you're escalating a potentially lethal situation into an almost guaranteed one, with no assurances that only criminals get killed.
If a criminal is going to hold someone at gunpoint, they're not going to use a legally bought weapon, since that weapon can be traced. Generally speaking, legally bought weapons aren't used for crime or killing people. Criminals use illegal weapons for that. Only in premeditated crimes, or from career criminals. Crimes of passion, or even premeditated shootings, can and do involve legally bought weapons.
Though, I suppose in the US it's ridiculously easy to steal a gun from somewhere. Other countries, it's not like every petty criminal can just find a black market dealer.
Legally bought weapons used by responsible people, again, aren't causing the problems which warrant them getting banned. It's obvious that sometimes legally bought weapons are misused, however they're just that: being misused. Which falls into the "illegal" category, which is not protected by the law.
Well...that's some convenient double think. Legally bought weapons are never a problem, because if they are a problem then they're "illegal".
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
I will try to be avoid being combative~
I don't know how people in countries with restrictive gun laws perceive the competence / ethical standards of their countries' police forces. I guess if you see them as extremely effective in preventing crime then I could understand your view that gun ownership is not 'necessary.'
There are a number of things in America which might make one suspect that the police value self-preservation over protection of the public...to understate it a bit (to name a few: dog-shooting being commonplace, botched no-knock raids, this incident during a manhunt - 100 shots fired at a truck with the wrong color and wrong model). Of course a few anecdotes are not proof of a systemic problem - still, in such a situation I hardly find it unreasonable that one would take measures to provide for one's own self-defense.
Also keep in mind that institutions of government are hardly static and just because they are functioning well today does not mean they will be functioning well even a few years from now.
|
On August 29 2014 17:41 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 17:16 Karpfen wrote: "We need guns to defend ourselves from the guns that we need" Yep it has always been a... circular logic? like this really. That's why among the first world countries it only happens in the USA, it's embedded in their history right from the start. I wonder if they could use the money on making their home unbreachable instead of getting a weapon. Is it impossible or too expensive? It should not be, considering how scared they seem to be of break ins and how common they are. It is impossible. Have you ever seen the show "It Takes a Thief"? If you haven't, I'll sum it up; they had reformed thieves break into homes, then show the homeowners how easy it was even in well-prepared homes, and then offer to upgrade their security for free. Then after the upgrades, the thieves try again. Even in the upgraded homes, they still managed to get in about half the time. They even robbed a police station in one episode.
And guns are not just to protect against guns, they're to protect against any violent criminals. You could be the tiniest, most helpless person on Earth, and come out unharmed against a 6 foot 4, 220lb thug on PCP, if you have a gun.
|
On August 29 2014 14:12 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 10:01 IgnE wrote:On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. You know that difference is completely fucking irrelevant right? You have the law on your side with or without a gun. Please try and respond to and engage with the actual argument. You don't understand the difference between having a gun legally and using it right vs having an illegal gun and using it for crime? If I really must explain it to you, you must have a poor understanding of this topic. I notice that once more, you're resorting to immature swearing in your post. Is this how you interact with people, generally speaking? You must not be a pleasant person irl if that's how you talk to people who have different views than you. If you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for recreation, protection or as a deterrent, then this means that you aren't misusing the gun. This in turn means that your gun isn't being a problem. Your gun isn't being used for school shooting, killing people, theft, it's not being used to threaten people or overpower others. So the gun of someone who respects the law and respects others is pretty much not being a problem. This is unlike the guns used by gangsters for example. So, in the event of your life being threatened, a law-abiding citizen with a legal gun may use that gun to preserve his life or the life of others, or their property. In the event of confrontation between two parties, the offending party (e.g. bikers, thieves, rapists) has little reason to engage in a shoot-out. They risk being shot at and generally speaking cowards fear for their lives. In the event that they survive, the law will not protect them like it will for the other party (the law abiding citizen). This is because they misused their guns. Oftentimes, petty criminals will at least understand that they have little to gain and a lot to lose by attempting to go aggress someone (is aggress a word? wow) with a legal gun. So why would you ban law abiding citizens their right to protect themselves? They're not being vigilantes, they're not doing police work by themselves. They are merely protecting themselves. I don't see at all how this is irrelevant. It's not like you explained to me why it was either way, all you did was swear like some 14 year old? Considering majority of guns in hands of criminals are originally legally owned guns means that in fact legal ownership of guns is problematic. And why would you ban them ? Because as the endresult you get safer society. If your goal is that, well you should strive to limit number of guns in general. If you are the rugged individualist and think that you are the special snowflake that will come on top of the otherwise more dangerous society, be my guest.
|
On August 30 2014 01:19 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 14:12 Incognoto wrote:On August 29 2014 10:01 IgnE wrote:On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. You know that difference is completely fucking irrelevant right? You have the law on your side with or without a gun. Please try and respond to and engage with the actual argument. You don't understand the difference between having a gun legally and using it right vs having an illegal gun and using it for crime? If I really must explain it to you, you must have a poor understanding of this topic. I notice that once more, you're resorting to immature swearing in your post. Is this how you interact with people, generally speaking? You must not be a pleasant person irl if that's how you talk to people who have different views than you. If you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for recreation, protection or as a deterrent, then this means that you aren't misusing the gun. This in turn means that your gun isn't being a problem. Your gun isn't being used for school shooting, killing people, theft, it's not being used to threaten people or overpower others. So the gun of someone who respects the law and respects others is pretty much not being a problem. This is unlike the guns used by gangsters for example. So, in the event of your life being threatened, a law-abiding citizen with a legal gun may use that gun to preserve his life or the life of others, or their property. In the event of confrontation between two parties, the offending party (e.g. bikers, thieves, rapists) has little reason to engage in a shoot-out. They risk being shot at and generally speaking cowards fear for their lives. In the event that they survive, the law will not protect them like it will for the other party (the law abiding citizen). This is because they misused their guns. Oftentimes, petty criminals will at least understand that they have little to gain and a lot to lose by attempting to go aggress someone (is aggress a word? wow) with a legal gun. So why would you ban law abiding citizens their right to protect themselves? They're not being vigilantes, they're not doing police work by themselves. They are merely protecting themselves. I don't see at all how this is irrelevant. It's not like you explained to me why it was either way, all you did was swear like some 14 year old? Considering majority of guns in hands of criminals are originally legally owned guns means that in fact legal ownership of guns is problematic. And why would you ban them ? Because as the endresult you get safer society. If your goal is that, well you should strive to limit number of guns in general. If you are the rugged individualist and think that you are the special snowflake that will come on top of the otherwise more dangerous society, be my guest. Citation needed.
|
On August 30 2014 01:26 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2014 01:19 mcc wrote:On August 29 2014 14:12 Incognoto wrote:On August 29 2014 10:01 IgnE wrote:On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote: Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. You know that difference is completely fucking irrelevant right? You have the law on your side with or without a gun. Please try and respond to and engage with the actual argument. You don't understand the difference between having a gun legally and using it right vs having an illegal gun and using it for crime? If I really must explain it to you, you must have a poor understanding of this topic. I notice that once more, you're resorting to immature swearing in your post. Is this how you interact with people, generally speaking? You must not be a pleasant person irl if that's how you talk to people who have different views than you. If you are a law-abiding citizen who owns a gun for recreation, protection or as a deterrent, then this means that you aren't misusing the gun. This in turn means that your gun isn't being a problem. Your gun isn't being used for school shooting, killing people, theft, it's not being used to threaten people or overpower others. So the gun of someone who respects the law and respects others is pretty much not being a problem. This is unlike the guns used by gangsters for example. So, in the event of your life being threatened, a law-abiding citizen with a legal gun may use that gun to preserve his life or the life of others, or their property. In the event of confrontation between two parties, the offending party (e.g. bikers, thieves, rapists) has little reason to engage in a shoot-out. They risk being shot at and generally speaking cowards fear for their lives. In the event that they survive, the law will not protect them like it will for the other party (the law abiding citizen). This is because they misused their guns. Oftentimes, petty criminals will at least understand that they have little to gain and a lot to lose by attempting to go aggress someone (is aggress a word? wow) with a legal gun. So why would you ban law abiding citizens their right to protect themselves? They're not being vigilantes, they're not doing police work by themselves. They are merely protecting themselves. I don't see at all how this is irrelevant. It's not like you explained to me why it was either way, all you did was swear like some 14 year old? Considering majority of guns in hands of criminals are originally legally owned guns means that in fact legal ownership of guns is problematic. And why would you ban them ? Because as the endresult you get safer society. If your goal is that, well you should strive to limit number of guns in general. If you are the rugged individualist and think that you are the special snowflake that will come on top of the otherwise more dangerous society, be my guest. Citation needed.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/21/us/criminals-black-market-in-guns-detailed.html http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/13639519810220127
well this is a little old but here you go.
|
The first one only has 20% of guns used in crime being originally owned legally. "...supply the weapons used in about 20 percent of all crimes." 20% is not a majority. Further, straw purchasing, which is what these middlemen the article mentions are doing, is already illegal.
I can't read the second because you have to pay to get the full file.
|
|
On August 30 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote: The first one only has 20% of guns used in crime being originally owned legally. "...supply the weapons used in about 20 percent of all crimes." 20% is not a majority. Further, straw purchasing, which is what these middlemen the article mentions are doing, is already illegal.
I can't read the second because you have to pay to get the full file.
Wow, talk about selective quotation.
"Nearly 9 in 10 guns bought from high-volume dealers and later used in crimes were sold to middlemen who turned around and resold them..."
"...traced to 140 gun stores throughout the nation that have been found to supply the weapons used in about 20 percent of all crimes."
9/10 is a very large majority. 20% is the number supplied by 140 specific stores.
And sure, straw purchasing might already be illegal, but obviously its not being controlled very well, or the system makes it very hard to control.
|
Isn't that saying that 9 out of 10 guns used in crimes from high-volume dealers = were sold to middle men who turned around and resold them
Not 9 out of 10 guns in crimes = from high-volume dealers ?
|
On August 30 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote: The first one only has 20% of guns used in crime being originally owned legally. "...supply the weapons used in about 20 percent of all crimes." 20% is not a majority. Further, straw purchasing, which is what these middlemen the article mentions are doing, is already illegal.
I can't read the second because you have to pay to get the full file. English does not seem to suit you. Maybe we should use a language you fully understand?
|
|
|
|