How do you feel about guns?

Actually it is a fact, a gun is 150% more likely to prevent a crime than be used in one. This is not even taking iinto account the times a criminal may have not even considered the crime becuase they were sure there was a gun.

What is amazing is that you would ignore a statistic and claim it is unrealistic becuase it goes against your argument. We Second Amendment supporters do not argue that certain countries without guns have lower murder rates per capita. We just correctly point out that their rates claimb faster than the good ole USA's, now that they banned firearms.

Finally, a gun does not deter all crime all the the time. No one claims it does. Just like a wheel locks don't do much good against embezzlers and padlocks do nothing against commited arsonists, a gun is for use in protecting your life. It's a last line of defense. The item you might turn to when all the chips are down and you're in a corner. If you don't choose to use one, that is fine, but please at least educate yourself to the true statistics and in the use of one. Even if you never carry one, you might find yourself using one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Chortle!)

Context, Mr. Scott. That's the problem. The point Neildo raised is certainly valid, but in another context. It just wasn't much of a response to the reality of the situation put before him.

I remember once that the infamous David Duke made the point about a correlation between skin color and crime; East St. Louis was his choice statistic, and the number was truly shocking. But to accept Duke's argument would presume that skin color was all there was to it. Nothing about education, nothing about economics. We could easily infer from Duke's argument that white people, subject to similar conditions as poor minorities, would not behave in the same manner as the minorities. Yet such a thesis is generally insupportable.

To accept the NRA and gun advocacy line about crime rates would be to concede that the only factor affecting a crime rate anywhere is the number of guns in the general population. And such a concession would be downright irresponsible for those who seek to understand and reduce the crime rate in any given society. Well, those who don't find small things justification for shooting someone to death.

But let's look at a few of your points. Perhaps that might clear things up:

And I reiterate: If I meant carjacked, I would have said it.

That you don't seem to acknowledge the difference between forms of theft is one of those things that worries me about gun owners and advocates. As is often said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, perhaps the thought of an armed populace would not be so worrisome if that populace didn't express itself so simplistically.

This is ... well, ridiculous. I mean, you're kidding, right? That's a good one, Mr. Scott. Thank you for proving that gun advocates have senses of humor.

Well, thing is that while you or I might agree about what "most circumstances" do not call for, there are "responsible gun owners" who think differently. Furthermore, that "wonderful invention" called a "brain" is exactly what I ask for: if gun owners and advocates did not represent themselves in such a creepy manner, they would not seem so damnably creepy and paranoid.

For instance:

This is one of those bits where I think evidence of your brain is lacking. Unless I choose to escalate my temperment regarding what circumstances require a gun, a lock box or gun safe really makes no real difference. I've my knife in the one place I know my daughter can't get to it; the nature of my apartment is such that the knife will serve no real use unless the bad guys take their sweet time coming in. Same problem, theoretically, with a gun. In the end, if I become as frightened as gun advocates would have me be, the better thing to do would be moving elsewhere. If I'm going to move, it would be better to do so because I don't like the crime rate than to make it more reasonable to keep a gun in my home.

But really, Mr. Scott--

But if a mother in my neck of the woods had been carjacked twice and was not considering protecting herself, then in my opinion she is no mother. She's just a woman with a child.​

--such moral assignations should be enough to demonstrate why some find gun advocates downright creepy and paranoid. There are other ways to protect oneself than getting a gun. And getting a gun, as you recall, is central to your argument of "protecting" oneself vis a vis parental fitness.

To the other, I think that's one of the paranoid motivations of the gun advocates: most fear that if they were required to demonstrate some sort of intelligence standard, they'd fail. Yet they let me drive because the law says they must. Educating children on protection is one thing, but so is educating children on value assignations. After all, there is the infamous case out of Oregon City, one that was not prosecuted, when the couple left their five year-old in charge of the three year-old. When the younger defied the elder, the boy got his daddy's loaded rifle from under the bed and shot her. Much like the guy who shot through his door to stop someone from asking him directions, and the guy who shot the hungry child, the father thought of himself as a "responsible gun owner". It's things like this that compel me to ask what such phrases as "responsible gun owners" mean. And the response seems to be that any official standard of responsibility is unacceptable as an infringement of rights.

Guns are not for bravado. Neither are knives. I appreciate an old Nepalese standard that if the combat knife is drawn and not used, the soldier would gash his own hand that the blade might taste blood. Not that I abide by it, but neither do I carry my weapon anymore. Traditional and mystical standards aside, no: guns are not for bravado. I presume that any gun pointed at me will be used. Really, I would not encourage people to start flashing unloaded guns: given the diverse interpretations of what constitutes threat and assault, it just doesn't seem like a smart idea. You know, a smart idea? As in, an idea that uses that wonderful invention called a brain?

So ... a public standard for what constitutes a "responsible gun owner" would be an infringement? I'll chuckle over that one tonight, and pick up whatever remains when I've more time to devote to reiterations. LIke the bit about claymores. You seem to have missed the point with your response.

And, you know, the more you swing-and-miss after relatively simple ideas, the more you paint yourself as failing to use that wonderful invention of yours.

And if broadly consistent poor self-representation by gun advocates is not something to worry about--to put it bluntly as such: if a bunch of indiscriminate people with guns is not a public concern--that doesn't mean I will sleep any better or worse because of it.

Life is. When the rhetoric deserves greater trust, the people spouting it will receive greater trust. In the meantime, my world is no safer for the fact of anyone in my locale who owns a gun.

 

The fact that the child obviously broke a law to get the gun in the first place escapes you. If they are willing to take it from your gun safe then they are willing to buy one off a crackhead, or out of the back of a truck or break into a gunshop. The moment they broke the law I am absolved and that is the way it should be.

A gun safe is responable assurance that nobody who is not supposed to have the gun doesn't get it. I can't be held responsible if my reasonable means were circumvented by crime or violence. If I gave the gun to the child you would have a point.

You can disagree all you want, you're still wrong.

Actually, I picked the correct paralell, wheter you have the brains to see it or not. If a drunk man never pulls his gun it never comes in to play. Same as if he sits in the passenger seat of his car. He is not operating the device it poses no threat. Or are you one of those people who believe a gun somehow controls a person.

 

The point is that it is still valid and constitutes an argument not a slogan as you mistakenly implied.

So the fact that these are countries that, before their gun ban, had much lower crime rates and groath that was roughly equal to the US, means nothing to you. The fact that they banned guns during an economic upswing and still their crime rate skyrocketed immediately, is just ignored. Interesting

There is differences in theft. There is non violent theft and violent theft. By all means if it is nonviolent don't worry about taking the guy down. Just report it to the police. However the people who would use violence to steal will invariably start doing more. Having a gun can stop a mugging form becoming a murder or rape. Not that every mugging goes that way.

Why is it ridiculous? Do you see CCW permit holder blazing away at the drop of a pin? Have you seen one shoot an annoying clerk in the check out line? From the way you speak you seem to expect us running around with M-60's blasting everything that moves.

Perhaps it is just your particular distaste for the suybject matter. Persoanlyy I find people who sell condos to be damnably creepy, but most people find them charming and ingenous.

I'm not saying be afraid, i didnt even say get a gun. I said consider one, hell train for it a bit. By a taser, keep a monkey wrench in the car. Something. This is so you don't have to be afraid. You can be confident that you have it handled. BTW in my neck of the woods during several months losing your car to a car jacker can mean a case of hypothermia.

You can work all the hypotherticals you want, my point was unless you considered (meaning thought out) protection you're not a mother. Since you have, albeit not well, you are exempt from that statement.

Did I say get a gun or you are not a mother? no. You're taking that way, becuase obviously you want to. I said consider protection. Hell get a sock full of some nuts and bolts if you want. The fact that you considered any type of protect firmly asserts that you are indeed a mother, even if you did not carry through.



I will not argue the rest as it is clear you use the same propaganda and rhetoric over and over despite it being disputed. Just make up any BS you want. After all that is what you've been doing with most of my arguments.

 

That's very amusing coming from a liberal. No moral bandwagon here (independent). I'll gladly toss aside morals and stick with the law, being allowed to own a gun to protect myself and those around me.

Thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

what about refuting his arguments? Merely repeating that you need your gun for protection merely shows how right Tiassa is.

 

Considering I've been in quite a few incidents where I HAVE needed a gun for protection merely shows how right I am.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Are you a criminal?

 

You seem to want to protect criminals with your liberal viewpoints always placing the blame on law-abiding citizens instead. Does that mean you're a criminal?

What a stupid question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It just goes to show how little you've been reading this thread. No wonder you're all just repeating yourselves having this going on for 35 pages. You guys ask nothing but stupid questions and come up with whacky hypothetical scenarios whereas everyone else is dealing with reality.

- N

 

I've never needed a gun in my entire life. Hence the question remains valid. Are you are criminal since you needed your gun several times?

 

Uh, if I was a criminal, I wouldn't be advocating gun rights because I could just pick one up off the street. Wanting the people who I would be vicitimizing to have guns would be pretty stupid on my part.

As I said, a dumb question and also shows how you haven't even bothered to read this thread as you'd know I wasn't one considering most of my friends are LEOs and other tidbits mentioned.

It's good that you haven't needed a gun all your life, even with you supposedly having been in the military, but I'm not you nor are the hundreds of thousands of people that prevent over 2 million crimes and assaults each year thanks to warding them off with a firearm. Count yourself lucky that you aren't one of the 10 million+ people that are victim to crimes each year in our country alone.

- N

 

I had a browning 9mm in the army. I had in my hands only during my training. Never saw it again after that. That's because I didn't need one. I was a medic.

Since you can't do anything but mount a personal attack I will consider that you lost this discussion and gun control should be increased in the US. Like in any other civilized country.

 

What you said

It's merely a slogan if deployed as a distraction from the point. Like I said:"The point Neildo raised is certainly valid, but in another context. It just wasn't much of a response to the reality of the situation put before him."

It's not ignored. It's just that among the diverse voices lumped together as "liberals" or according to a mythological depiction of "gun control advocates", there is a fair-sized body of people who don't pretend a single statistical corellation tells the whole of any human story. And they, routinely, are ignored inasmuch as the only attention given their perspective is to call it what it isn't: Gasp! They want a broader perspective: they must be out to steal your rights!

It's all in the presentation. Why would gun advocates misrepresent themselves? Is it some calculated effort to get others to respond so you can cry foul? Maybe you're just not thinking the issues through?

At the level we communicate, your words are your actions, and all we have to go on. If, in the living experience, however, that creepy sense of paranoia is reflected in people's actual actions--the neighbors are throwing a party, quick, get the gun!--what, really, are other people supposed to think? There seems a demonstrative similarity between the talk and behavior.

What you said, specifically, was:

How the car is stolen is the difference. Was the car simply gone when you came out from the grocery store? Was it lifted from your garage? Or were you carjacked? In the later case you have already survived russian roulette twice as has your daughter. Gambling with your life is fine, and I suppose if you believe you own your daughter, then gambling with hers is okay as well. Of course if I was DSS I'd be watching you and waiting for you do something else incredibly stupid with your child.​

 

What personal attack? You asked if I was a criminal because of my stance on guns and that's a pretty stupid question for the reasons I gave. Why would a criminal want guns to be in the hands of the people they assault and steal from?

I'm not the one trying to defend criminals, your liberal-self is always wanting to protect them and make law-abiding citizens out to be the bad guys telling us to run from criminals rather than standing our ground, wanting to press worse charges on us than the criminal, wanting to rehabilitate criminals and give them less prison time which allows them to get out early and commit more crimes. Did you know that the majority of violent crimes are caused by the same few people? Most people in prison have been in there multiple times which wouldn't be a problem if liberals would just leave them there rather than wanting to always release them. You guys are the ones to blame for our high crime rates keeping the criminals on the streets. Liberals are the ones who disarmed citizens in those major cities leaving the guns to the crooks. Liberals tend to be the mayors in those big cities. We have only them to blame.

As for increasing gun control like other "civilized countries", not many have strict requirements as you think. And you can't get any more strict than a complete and total gun ban that the U.S. has in the cities where the majority of crimes happen. Our gun laws are perfectly fine considering we don't have much crime elsewhere in this country other than those crime-infested cities which DO have gun bans. Note: Gun BANS, not gun control, as you can't even own one period. Amusing how all the crime and gun related deaths happen in the cities where guns aren't even allowed.

Please explain that one to me on how your so-called "gun control" would fix that when your gun control would be less severe than our complete and total gun bans. C'mon, you're supposedly the smart one here. You can't get any more severe than a total ban. Tell me how you'd clean up Washington D.C., Chicago, New York City, New Jersey, and other hellholes where the majority of our violent crimes in this country are commited where guns aren't allowed yet all the criminals have em and commit their crimes with them. The only thing those bans did was keep the guns out of the hands of citizens who are victim to those crimes. Laws do nothing to stop criminals.

In my next post, I'm going to make a list of the most violent cities in the U.S. and show you who was in control for the past 50 years. In most of those cities, there is either a complete gun ban, very strict gun control laws, or are in the process of trying to ban them.

- N

 

Okay, I'm running out of big cities to think of. Someone gimme a few more that have high crime rates so I can get the stats.

- N

 

I hope that factoid isn't distilled from Klecks dubious statistics. If Klecks assertions are true, there is a lot of unreported crime in the USA, as his gun defense stats are higher than the number of reported crimes. This rather blows the argument that more guns = less crime right out of the water.

Also, reaching for a gun because a stranger looks at you funny isn't a gun defence, it's an act of paranoia, and a false positive in the stats.

 

What kind of incidents?