Gun Control: Your Opinion

[New Kereptica]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

[Omnicracy]

'Destruction of rights'? Well, if the right has been revoked... you can't destroy it... no?

We have the technology to spot weapons, even concealed. We don't employ such technology outside of very limited avenues for a number of reasons - not least of which is massive expense. There are also arguments that randomly scanning people invades their privacy or something.

But it exists. We could have a basically gun-free society.

Yes, you can also have a society with essentially zero crime, but you wouldn't want to live there.

Yeah. Who wants to not get killed.

I would rather die with an empty stomach and full head than live with a full stomach and empty head.

[The Adrian Empire]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

[New Kereptica]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

[The Adrian Empire]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Decent to Good Chance
Unarmed = Slight to No Chance (unless one is suitably trained in martial arts and are standing less then three to five metres away from the shooter )

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

[New Kereptica]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

[Omnicracy]

Ok, When it comes to gun controle, it's rather simple. Sell the bullets for the guns for like, 10k a round and noone will die from ails of gun fire for no reason....that simple....i would say just stop making guns, but we all know that would never happen.

It's too easy to make your own bullets, so that won't work. It's not rocket science.

No, but it is chemistry - so sell the components for greatly increased prices, same effect.

You try explaining to people why they need to spend $1,000 for enough charcoal to barbaque with.

[The Adrian Empire]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

How do you mean? Will there always be casualties in these awful events? Yes, no amount of guns will stop these killings out right, neither will any amount of gun control. The point is that with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens the casualties of these mass murders can be minimized, as my evidence has shown, where as with gun control the opposite is true, "gun free zones" increase deaths, gun control is ineffective at best, negatively effective at worst.

What I am arguing is that numbers being that there is more law-abiding citizens then criminals, and generally at least in some areas more gun owners then criminals. Meaning that law-abiding citizens have numbers and time on their side, eventually the police will arrive and stop him if the citizens can't. This is what the police were always intended to do, in addition to investigating and preventing crime

[Omnicracy]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who watches the watchmen?

Who watches those who watch the watchmen?

Well, in this case, that would be the watchmen.

[New Kereptica]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

How do you mean? Will there always be casualties in these awful events? Yes, no amount of guns will stop these killings out right, neither will any amount of gun control. The point is that with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens the casualties of these mass murders can be minimized, as my evidence has shown, where as with gun control the opposite is true, "gun free zones" increase deaths, gun control is ineffective at best, negatively effective at worst.

I am not arguing for or against gun control. All I am doing is attempting to show that guns are not the miracle-cures you seem to think they are.

[New Kereptica]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who watches the watchmen?

Who watches those who watch the watchmen?

Well, in this case, that would be the watchmen.

So the watchmen have authority over those who watch them, and those who watch the watchmen have authority over the watchmen? You have quite effectively removed both groups from having any authority whatsoever.

[Omnicracy]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Once the criminal is comited to fighting, true. Befor that? No. The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed.

[New Kereptica]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Once the criminal is comited to fighting, true. Befor that? No. The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed.

In which case they are, for all intents and purposes, not criminals. I am not interested in passing judgment upon those who have committed crimes in the past; this situation regards those who are committing them in the present.

[Omnicracy]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

Why did you change:

Armed = Decent to Good Chance
Unarmed = Slight to No Chance (unless one is suitably trained in martial arts and are standing less then three to five metres away from the shooter )

to:

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

In your quotation?

[New Kereptica]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

Why did you change:

Armed = Decent to Good Chance
Unarmed = Slight to No Chance (unless one is suitably trained in martial arts and are standing less then three to five metres away from the shooter )

to:

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

In your quotation?

I didn't. I quoted him before he had a chance to edit it.

[The Adrian Empire]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

How do you mean? Will there always be casualties in these awful events? Yes, no amount of guns will stop these killings out right, neither will any amount of gun control. The point is that with guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens the casualties of these mass murders can be minimized, as my evidence has shown, where as with gun control the opposite is true, "gun free zones" increase deaths, gun control is ineffective at best, negatively effective at worst.

I am not arguing for or against gun control. All I am doing is attempting to show that guns are not the miracle-cures you seem to think they are.

Who said they are a miracle cure? They're not, they won't stop every crime, they won't save every person, they won't stop every wife-beater, they won't dissuade every robbery, they won't stop every dictatorship from taking control, but they will stop some, they will help some. Gun control doesn't do this. It denies a personal liberty that I believe never should be denied.

[New Kereptica]

Who said they are a miracle cure? They're not, they won't stop every crime, they won't save every person, they won't stop every wife-beater, they won't dissuade every robbery, they won't stop every dictatorship from taking control, but they will stop some, they will help some. Gun control doesn't do this. It denies a personal liberty that I believe never should be denied.

You're claiming that gun control has never helped anybody?

[Omnicracy]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who watches the watchmen?

Who watches those who watch the watchmen?

Well, in this case, that would be the watchmen.

So the watchmen have authority over those who watch them, and those who watch the watchmen have authority over the watchmen? You have quite effectively removed both groups from having any authority whatsoever.

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

[New Kereptica]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

[The Adrian Empire]

Evidence, would suggest otherwise, such as the two million some legal uses of guns to deter crime in the United States along, and numerous recorded stories of it working against what you think. A sane criminal is not stupid enough to risk his life over a wallet. Or try to take advantage of an armed woman. And in a situation where crazed murderers are looking to kill people, tactical thinking is likely not his strong suit, if it is, then there is still the very good chance that the person they are attacking will successfully defend themselves.

And again, the reason it's called concealed carry is that he doesn't knows you are carrying a gun (besides those you tell and the police) until you draw it and it is too late to strategically take him out

One isn't a criminal till one has commuted a crime. I was assuming that the situation in question was an armed individual committing a crime, not just some bloke with a gun, who happened to have committed a crime in the past, opening fire upon random people in the street who happen to be carrying firearms.

And no, unless you're standing within a few feet of each other, face to face, it is certainly not too late.

Then you are armed and capable of firing back, if he sees you obviously he will shoot at you first, but in this case not firing back will leave you just as dead, unless you run which is simply letting other people die in your place. Armed you have chance of resolving the situation without further death or at least with the death of only the shooter, if it continues it may be an entire class or store or restaurant before the police arrive, and obviously you haven't read the story I posted earlier of two armed students stopping a school shooter early, disarming him and forcing him to the ground until police arrived.

And most criminals don't walk around gun in hand, that would make them stupid, they in all but the rarest recorded cases first get very close to their targets, sometimes they have knives sometimes guns, sometimes they are just big, but the point is that you can stop them from committing the crime.Whether you are a feeble old man, a paraplegic, or a petite young woman, because you have a gun to protect yourself

Because differences in reaction time and skill in shooting don't exist.

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

What are you trying to argue here? That an armed individual wouldn't be capable of defending themselves in this situation because I have already presented examples of places where this just is not so. See my University of Utah example I believe two pages back

I'm arguing that there is no Universal Leveler. There are always some people who are more able to attack than the people whom they oppose are able to defend.

Why did you change:

Armed = Decent to Good Chance
Unarmed = Slight to No Chance (unless one is suitably trained in martial arts and are standing less then three to five metres away from the shooter )

to:

Armed = Chance
Unarmed = No Chance

In your quotation?

Yeah that was me, I have tendency to do that I apologize, I've done it with three out of my last four posts, I changed because I realized of course that there is a chance for people unarmed against a crime, but armed they have a better chance.

[Omnicracy]

And they get shot like any other brown shirt.

Why would they get shot?

They'd have guns.

Yes, they would. In fighting (or out of it) the good guys would shoot them, not so?

I thought we argued earlier about whether being armed stopped other armed people shooting you.. or something?

For crime, yes. Criminals are less likly to attack armed people because they are armed. In a revolution, you shoot all the bad guys.

Criminals are quite likely to attack armed people, specifically because they are armed. They pose a threat, and engaging that threat preemptively is a tactical decision.

Once the criminal is comited to fighting, true. Befor that? No. The criminal would be less likely to enter a situation in wich they are likely to be harmed.

In which case they are, for all intents and purposes, not criminals. I am not interested in passing judgment upon those who have committed crimes in the past; this situation regards those who are committing them in the present.

Fine. Replace my "Criminals" with "Persons who would be willing to comit crimes" and we solve everything.

[Miryr]

I just love how people claim that having an automatic shotgun is for their own protection. Unless you're fighting zombies there's little to no chance you'll need a street sweeper.

[The Adrian Empire]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Then they have the ability to remove those watchers, as the public will stand behind them, however if they do so and the public is not behind them then they invite a popular rebellion. The point is that without the watchers in the first place, if the watchmen are corrupt there is no defence against them.

[New Kereptica]

The watchmen have officail authority over the watchersof the watchmen, while the watchers of the watchmen have the responsibility to remove them from watchmenship if they become corrupt.

And what happens when, in order to protect themselves, the watchmen deem the watchers corrupt?

Then they have the ability to remove those watchers, as the public will stand behind them, however if they do so and the public is not behind them then they invite a popular rebellion. The point is that without the watchers in the first place, if the watchmen are corrupt there is no defence against them.

And that confirms what I said before. If both groups have essentially absolute power over each other, and that power is held in equal measure, both are entirely incapacitated.

You cannot have both a safe system and a system which works at the same time.

[Grave_n_idle]

In and of itself? No. However, as I have said, it can restrict a populases ability to defend itself. It can be harmfull to socioty as a whole.

We have a military to defend us... don't we?

Who watches the watchmen?

Me. Especially Silk Specter.