Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Because you gave only one gun to the criminals, if you had given more I would have used them, so those criminals could all have guns, but they still would have those guns if there was gun control, while the girl only has a gun in my example, so say they do have those guns, and she pulls out a gun, now what? Do the criminals shoot her? They're now murderers, not only that, their gun shots have alerted the neighbourhood, people will phone the police and armed neighbours will rush to help the women. A criminal won't take that chance, they'll run this has been demonstrated in thousands of cases of gun deterrence.

Ah, the mythical 'it has been proved'. Can't argue with that.

I mean - really can't.

[Grave_n_idle]

So you would have it because guns can fall into the hands of bad people to just take away the right everyone has to defend themselves,

No.

So what are you saying? Do you agree that people have a right to their self-defence? Then surely you will agree that the gun is the greatest conduit of self-defence, at least for now.

Hasn't this already been addressed in this thread?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

And when you ARE the girl in that alley, you'll wish that you had the gun....

Ridiculous argument. An unarmed girl with no training in self defense is ALWAYS going to lose to larger and more brutal people of ANY gender. This makes no change in the argument that an armed person is FAR less likely to be a victim of the thugs and criminals that will exist until either we kill enough of them that they no longer have an effect on the gene pool or the species becomes extinct. An unarmed thug will be at the mercy of the most FRAIL person who is armed and willing to use the weapon. Since thugs don't follow the current laws, what makes you believe that they will suddenly follow gun laws? Removing firearms from legal ownership creates a blackmarket in firearms(removing all oversight, even for QUALITY), disarms all the "good" people, and arms all the "bad" people. Is this really a good thing? Do you really want to be a victim of armed criminals? If so, then please allow those of us who don't wish that to defend ourselves. It is far cheaper in every manner for you to simply take an ample supply of whatever valuatta you have and walk into the most crime-ridden area you can find. I can gauruntee that you'll become a victim without having to insist that all other "good" people become victims as well.

I started reading this, and was going to start addressing some of the points being raised... but by the time I'd read through to the end I no longer had any idea what you were talking about.

So I didn't.

[Uawc]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

...you're going to want a gun. Preferably an automatic.

[The Adrian Empire]

I don't assume every person will be carrying a gun, I am saying that for those who are carrying a gun the situation will be markedly different, I am giving these people guns in my example because in yours they don't have one,

But, in your amednment, you still only gave one extra gun - to the victim.

And then you base your estimates off of the victim taking a shot, and everyone runs away - rather than the victim pulling the gun, three of the would-be-rapists shooting her, disarming her, and then raping her.

Because you gave only one gun to the criminals, if you had given more I would have used them, so those criminals could all have guns, but they still would have those guns if there was gun control, while the girl only has a gun in my example, so say they do have those guns, and she pulls out a gun, now what? Do the criminals shoot her? They're now murderers, not only that, their gun shots have alerted the neighbourhood, people will phone the police and armed neighbours will rush to help the women. A criminal won't take that chance, they'll run this has been demonstrated in thousands of cases of gun deterrence.

Ah, the mythical 'it has been proved'. Can't argue with that.

I mean - really can't.

Oh, sorry, by "it has been proved", I meant I have already provided several examples and citations for those examples throughout this thread, I would prefer not to go looking for them, but seeing as you seem to have missed them. I will collect them

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

...you're going to want a gun. Preferably an automatic.

I think you'd rather not be getting raped, in the first place.

[Brostan]

Gun control is stupid, of course people should not have anti-tank weapons or .50 cal machine guns but if we ban guns then bad people will still get them somehow and good people won't have anything to effectively defend themselves with.

[Uawc]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

...you're going to want a gun. Preferably an automatic.

I think you'd rather not be getting raped, in the first place.

Who is going to rape a girl with an AA-12?

[The Adrian Empire]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

...you're going to want a gun. Preferably an automatic.

I think you'd rather not be getting raped, in the first place.

But, you still be getting raped even if they didn't have a gun, because they will have a knife and you won't or as men they will typically be stronger and you won't and of course even if there was gun control they would still have a gun because they are criminals. And criminals don't obey gun bans

[Uawc]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

[The Parkus Empire]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

[Uawc]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

It's stupid. Why do that when you can just pull a shotgun on the criminal right then and there? You won't even have to fire, he'll just freeze/run while someone calls the cops.

[The Adrian Empire]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

Indeed, even unarmed though, rapists pose a dangerous threat to young women, an armed young women can stop the rape before it begins (no I am not saying a preemptive shooting)

[Uawc]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

Indeed, even unarmed though, rapists pose a dangerous threat to young women, an armed young women can stop the rape before it begins (no I am not saying a preemptive shooting)

Exactly. Just pull it out and he'll shrink and run. Problem solved, everybody's happy...except the criminal, that is.

[The Adrian Empire]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

It's stupid. Why do that when you can just pull a shotgun on the criminal right then and there? You won't even have to fire, he'll just freeze/run while someone calls the cops.

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

[The Adrian Empire]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

Is that true? Boy, society has become something hasn't it, now a criminals doesn't even need to hold a banana in their hand (as a fake pistol) and people will still give in to them

[Uawc]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

It's stupid. Why do that when you can just pull a shotgun on the criminal right then and there? You won't even have to fire, he'll just freeze/run while someone calls the cops.

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

As a libertarian democratic socialist, I don't see why liberals/other leftists don't get it. This argument is about simple logic.

[The Adrian Empire]

Gun control is stupid, of course people should not have anti-tank weapons or .50 cal machine guns but if we ban guns then bad people will still get them somehow and good people won't have anything to effectively defend themselves with.

Agreed, if criminals found a need for those weapons then there would be anti-tank guns on the street. Though the larger the weapon the easier for police to stop smuggling said items, now I have limits, I think once were in the "car-destroying" range of weaponry we might want to put some restrictions on them, to make sure the good guys are the only ones who have them preferably only for collections and elephant hunting

[Meldaria]

Why do people need guns? If you fund your police force well-enough they should be able to protect your people from criminals who have smuggled weapons into the country. Let's not make it any easier for them.

[The Adrian Empire]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

It's stupid. Why do that when you can just pull a shotgun on the criminal right then and there? You won't even have to fire, he'll just freeze/run while someone calls the cops.

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

As a libertarian democratic socialist, I don't see why liberals/other leftists don't get it. This argument is about simple logic.

You would think that merely seeing the agreement between right-wing authoritarian capitalists and left-wing libertarian socialists would be enough to say there is something about our argument but it seems that there will always will be need to make these arguments

[Uawc]

Why do people need guns? If you fund your police force well-enough they should be able to protect your people from criminals who have smuggled weapons into the country. Let's not make it any easier for them.

When you're being mugged in the street, it'l take at least ten minutes for the cops to get there to help you. Your life is on the line, and it can all be over in a split second.

[South Norwega]

Why do people need guns? If you fund your police force well-enough they should be able to protect your people from criminals who have smuggled weapons into the country. Let's not make it any easier for them.

Well if you also have a strong justice system and strong penalties, then criminals will generally be dissuaded in the first place. I would think that would be at least as effective as everyone carrying around guns on their person. Accidents do happen.

[Uawc]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

It's stupid. Why do that when you can just pull a shotgun on the criminal right then and there? You won't even have to fire, he'll just freeze/run while someone calls the cops.

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

As a libertarian democratic socialist, I don't see why liberals/other leftists don't get it. This argument is about simple logic.

You would think that merely seeing the agreement between right-wing authoritarian capitalists and left-wing libertarian socialists would be enough to say there is something about our argument but it seems that there will always will be need to make these arguments

See, what I think is going on is that sometimes people aren't mature enough to accept that someone else may be right about something just because they're part of a different group or political platform. It's like,

"OMG. HE IS RELIGIOUS. THEREFORE HE IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING."

We as human beings must free ourselves from this ignorant way of thinking and keep an open mind, to listen to what others have to say, even if they are of a political stance that we don't agree with.

In short, it's not about the actual facts on the table. This, like everything else, has turned into a veiled political debate, and everyone is too stubborn and narrow-minded to think for themselves.

[The Parkus Empire]

Is that true? Boy, society has become something hasn't it, now a criminals doesn't even need to hold a banana in their hand (as a fake pistol) and people will still give in to them

Sure, because the guy might have a gun in his pocket, or something.

http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp

http://www.ocregister.com/news/bank-226 ... -note.html

It happens all the time. Bank robbery without a weapon can be as little as four years, with parole possible. Throw in a gun, and you crank it up to fifteen years.

But if the robber does have a gun, having one of your own might make him violent. Nothing scares the shit out criminals more than the possibility that their victims have guns; if they think their victim has a gun before the crime begins, that fear takes the form of retreat. In the middle of crime, that fear takes the form of violence.

[Uawc]

Is that true? Boy, society has become something hasn't it, now a criminals doesn't even need to hold a banana in their hand (as a fake pistol) and people will still give in to them

Sure, because the guy might have gun in his pocket, or something.

http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp

http://www.ocregister.com/news/bank-226 ... -note.html

It happens all the time. Bank robbery without a weapon can be as little as four years, with parole possible. Throw in a gun, and you crank it up to fifteen years.

But if the robber does have a gun, having one of your own might make him violent. Nothing scares the shit out criminals more than the possibility that their victims have guns; if they think their victim has a gun before the crime begins, that fear takes the form of retreat. In the middle of crime, that fear takes the form of violence.

I think gun safety and training courses (as well as gun ownership itself) should be socialized, and mandatory for any citizen who wishes to legally acquire firearms. This makes gun ownership not only safer for everyone but yet another disadvantage to criminals.