watchoutwevegotabadass.jpgeleven bravo wrote:
some asshole used a tire iron against me in a fight when i was 16 and still whooped his ass
No one is doubting the effectiveness of a firearm as a deterrent.RAIMIUS wrote:
The data is a bit dated, but interesting.
It just some people are not understanding that it isn't the only deterrent against an attacker. There will be a time, or many times. Where one doesn't have access to a firearm, or cant get to it in time. So you need a fallback plan, a taser, some pepper spray or even your fists are an excellent deterrent.
The best deterrent is just stay away from situations that require your to defend yourself. The mind is our greatest weapon, use it or lose it.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Guns are only 8% more effective than doing nothing.
Poll: Views on gun laws unchanged after Aurora theater massacre
Tone of article: you should feel bad about not wanting to ban guns *hint hint hint* you terrible people.
Tone of article: you should feel bad about not wanting to ban guns *hint hint hint* you terrible people.
So are we seriously suggesting that having a massacre every year in addition to our already high rate of gun crime is just part of human society that we're going to have to live with?
and what would the alternative be? the confiscation and destruction of 350+ million firearms? State managed, bi-monthly mental health exams? I'm all for keeping guns and any other weapons out of the hands of criminals and window lickers but visceral reactions will not solve anything.Narupug wrote:
So are we seriously suggesting that having a massacre every year in addition to our already high rate of gun crime is just part of human society that we're going to have to live with?
there are clearly only two options, of course
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I'd certainly prefer the rapist didn't have a gun or taser.Stingray24 wrote:
So you'd prefer a lady have no equalizer against a rapist even if she's had the proper training and has no criminal record?Dilbert_X wrote:
In any population there will be stupid, angry, senile, jumpy, hormonal, psychotic, juvenile etc etc people.
Maybe its better for no-one to have a gun than be guaranteed there will be millions of stupid, angry, senile, jumpy, hormonal, psychotic, juvenile people wandering the streets with guns.
Criminals usually have the drop on their victim.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-07-31 01:45:21)
Fuck Israel
Who has called for any of that?Reciprocity wrote:
and what would the alternative be? the confiscation and destruction of 350+ million firearms? State managed, bi-monthly mental health exams? I'm all for keeping guns and any other weapons out of the hands of criminals and window lickers but visceral reactions will not solve anything.Narupug wrote:
So are we seriously suggesting that having a massacre every year in addition to our already high rate of gun crime is just part of human society that we're going to have to live with?
Reducto ad absurdam again.
Whats your solution, sit back and let the slaughters continue?
Fuck Israel
because the rapist is clearly going to obey the gun law while...raping? or are we in the gun-free fantasy world?Dilbert_X wrote:
I'd certainly prefer the rapist didn't have a gun or taser.Stingray24 wrote:
So you'd prefer a lady have no equalizer against a rapist even if she's had the proper training and has no criminal record?Dilbert_X wrote:
In any population there will be stupid, angry, senile, jumpy, hormonal, psychotic, juvenile etc etc people.
Maybe its better for no-one to have a gun than be guaranteed there will be millions of stupid, angry, senile, jumpy, hormonal, psychotic, juvenile people wandering the streets with guns.
better awareness of people with undiagnosed personality disorders? These mass killings are mental health issues, no amount of legislation is going to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. magically take away the "assault rifles" and you'll get a Charles Whitman with a hunting rifle picking off pedestrians at 400 yards. Take away the hunting rifles and you'll have bombers and poisoners. then someone plowing through a pre-school playground in an oldsmobile or hijacking a plane or going on a stabbing spree with a sharpened butter knife. This guy in colorado bought guns because he was not a criminal, he was not a diagnosed nutball and sometimes that's just how it is.Dilbert_X wrote:
What's your solution, sit back and let the slaughters continue?
I believe he meabt that the offender mY get your weapon. i assume so from the "criminals usually get the jump" part you conviniently missed.Reciprocity wrote:
because the rapist is clearly going to obey the gun law while...raping? or are we in the gun-free fantasy world?Dilbert_X wrote:
I'd certainly prefer the rapist didn't have a gun or taser.Stingray24 wrote:
So you'd prefer a lady have no equalizer against a rapist even if she's had the proper training and has no criminal record?
Wouldn't it be better if criminals had a harder time getting hold of guns?Reciprocity wrote:
because the rapist is clearly going to obey the gun law while...raping? or are we in the gun-free fantasy world?
If the law abiding have to jump through a few trivial hoops is that really so bad?
Its not always people with personality disorders, or any other readily identifiable feature, who commit crime or tip over the edge.better awareness of people with undiagnosed personality disorders?
Wouldn't it make sense to limit their readily available firepower a little?
Fuck Israel
I meant if a criminal has a gun drawn on you it doesn't really matter if you have a bazooka in your pocket, they've got the drop and you don't have a hope however fast you can F2-left-click in a video-game.Adams wrote:
I believe he meabt that the offender mY get your weapon. i assume so from the "criminals usually get the jump" part you conviniently missed.
Fuck Israel
Um,UnkleRukus wrote:
What, a taser sending thousands of volts of electricity will take down most if not anyone.-Sh1fty- wrote:
You honestly see any of those stopping a 200lbs+ man trying to rape, assault, rob, or murder somebody smaller? What if somebody like that went up against me? You think I'd stand a chance against him with any of that shit? hell no I need a gunUnkleRukus wrote:
Well one could argue that there are many other "equalizers" out there. Blades, tazers, pepper spray, hand to hand defensive teqniques.
Guns are a tool in defense, but they are not the only tool one can use.
You say pepper spray wont take down a 200 pound man. Wait until basic when they spray that shit on the tiniest motherfucker (you) to the biggest guy in the platoon. It doesn't matter how big your are when you get any amount of capsicum in your eye.
Hand to hand combat is extremely effective at close range. Anyone with any reasonable amount of training can take down an assailant.
If you think a gun is your only line of defense, you are going to flunk out of basic really fucking quick.
1) A tazer is great against one person, provided they aren't wearing a thick coat.
2) In OC training, I had to get totally hosed down in OC spray and then fight off 5 attackers. I was successful. About 12 hours later, I was on fire and thought I was going to die. Word to the wise: Don't take a shower after being covered in OC spray.
That seems to be the fundamental difference on this subject. In my opinion, placing limits on my ability obtain a gun does nothing to reduce criminal access to guns. You seem to think that limiting my access by extension somehow limits criminal access correct? I'm not clear on how you reach that conclusion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wouldn't it be better if criminals had a harder time getting hold of guns? If the law abiding have to jump through a few trivial hoops is that really so bad?
The argument is that if normal people don't have guns, criminals can't steal them.Stingray24 wrote:
That seems to be the fundamental difference on this subject. In my opinion, placing limits on my ability obtain a gun does nothing to reduce criminal access to guns. You seem to think that limiting my access by extension somehow limits criminal access correct? I'm not clear on how you reach that conclusion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wouldn't it be better if criminals had a harder time getting hold of guns? If the law abiding have to jump through a few trivial hoops is that really so bad?
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
I understand the details of the argument, but it doesn't seem to account for all the other ways criminals obtain guns.
dilbert did say "Wouldn't it be better if criminals had a harder time getting hold of guns?". I think everyone realizes if someone really wants something, they will go to extreme measures to get it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make it as tough as possible, within reason.
The alternative is making it harder for people who are planning on doing bad things to get a hold of guns. If you would allow me to bring up the car analogy as others have already done. We put up with what I would call a relatively thorough process of training before we are allowed to operate a car. If everyone is willing to put up with that to be able to drive a car, then, why do we have nothing even approaching that before we're allowed to operate a firearm?Reciprocity wrote:
and what would the alternative be? the confiscation and destruction of 350+ million firearms? State managed, bi-monthly mental health exams? I'm all for keeping guns and any other weapons out of the hands of criminals and window lickers but visceral reactions will not solve anything.Narupug wrote:
So are we seriously suggesting that having a massacre every year in addition to our already high rate of gun crime is just part of human society that we're going to have to live with?
I acknowledge the argument that people who want to do this kind of stuff will find ways to do it one way or another. But the more obstacles you put in their way, the better a chance you have of stopping them.
We don't need to get rid of the guns, we need to get rid of the homicidal crazies.
Outlawing guns makes about as much sense as outlawing automobiles because people get DUIs with them,
or outlawing hypodermic needles to stop heroin junkies,
or outlawing skimpy black dresses to stop rapists...
Outlawing guns makes about as much sense as outlawing automobiles because people get DUIs with them,
or outlawing hypodermic needles to stop heroin junkies,
or outlawing skimpy black dresses to stop rapists...
There are millions of unlicensed drivers on the road every day.Narupug wrote:
The alternative is making it harder for people who are planning on doing bad things to get a hold of guns. If you would allow me to bring up the car analogy as others have already done. We put up with what I would call a relatively thorough process of training before we are allowed to operate a car. If everyone is willing to put up with that to be able to drive a car, then, why do we have nothing even approaching that before we're allowed to operate a firearm?Reciprocity wrote:
and what would the alternative be? the confiscation and destruction of 350+ million firearms? State managed, bi-monthly mental health exams? I'm all for keeping guns and any other weapons out of the hands of criminals and window lickers but visceral reactions will not solve anything.Narupug wrote:
So are we seriously suggesting that having a massacre every year in addition to our already high rate of gun crime is just part of human society that we're going to have to live with?
I acknowledge the argument that people who want to do this kind of stuff will find ways to do it one way or another. But the more obstacles you put in their way, the better a chance you have of stopping them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who said anything about limits for you?Stingray24 wrote:
That seems to be the fundamental difference on this subject. In my opinion, placing limits on my ability obtain a gun does nothing to reduce criminal access to guns. You seem to think that limiting my access by extension somehow limits criminal access correct? I'm not clear on how you reach that conclusion.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wouldn't it be better if criminals had a harder time getting hold of guns? If the law abiding have to jump through a few trivial hoops is that really so bad?
Having checks and balances to prevent straw purchases, weed out mongs, and discourage people who plan to use their legally purchased guns irresponsibly or criminally wouldn't be so bad would it?
Registration, secure storage, a rigourous licensing sytem - its not that difficult.
Fuck Israel
Most of the interest groups that have "gun control" as their primary purpose. The Brady Campaign and VPC, in particular, like to propose things like AWBs, bans on concealed carry, and other actions that show no evidence of lowering violent crime rates.Dilbert_X wrote:
Who said anything about limits for you?
Enforce the NICS system, prosecute straw purchasers, and have harsh penalties for violent crime? SURE! I'm right with you.Dilbert_X wrote:
Having checks and balances to prevent straw purchases, weed out mongs, and discourage people who plan to use their legally purchased guns irresponsibly or criminally wouldn't be so bad would it?
Will registration solve or prevent crimes, statistically speaking?Dilbert_X wrote:
Registration, secure storage, a rigourous licensing sytem - its not that difficult.
What is "secure?" (Yeah, we had that discussion a few pages back. My opinion hasn't changed since last week.)
What's "rigourous?" What are the standards, costs, and steps to limit abuse? (e.g. some states give local law enforcement the option to issue or not issue a concealed carry permit to qualified applicants. At least one sheriff required a campaign contribution, if you wanted a permit.)