Gun Control: Your Opinion

[Grave_n_idle]

When you're being mugged in the street, it'l take at least ten minutes for the cops to get there...

That has the distinctive appearance of a 'just pulled out of your arse' statistic, don't you think?

[Grave_n_idle]

...when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in...

This happens. All the time.

[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)

Don't most rapes actually occur within the household of the rapist or the victim? Isn't it entirely likely that the victim would be caught without a weapon even if he/she had one - and especially likely since rapes tend to be fairly sudden/surprise attacks, rather than kidnapping or something?

In fact that is when guns can be most useful, again biased source but not a fabricated story
http://gunowners.org/sk0501.htm

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

A little paranoid, no?

If North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons, the other countries still will have - and North Korea will have nothing to defend themselves with!

Won't someone PLEASE think of North Korea?

Indeed what would keep China from nuking North Korea if they got uppity, or invading them completely, and committing mass genocide of the Korean people's, now North Korea certainly isn't stable enough to get nuclear weapons in my opinion just as I would like background check before one could buy a gun. But, if you asking me that if say Lithuania or Luxembourg wanted to build a nuclear weapon in order to keep their nation independent, we should say no, I disagree.

And Iran. It's really not fair that Israel - who keeps threatening them - is armed, but poor little Iran isn't allowed to defend itself.

It doesn't even want to use them - it just wants equal footing with the other nations that might try to harm them.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because money is just money?

The phrase "'just' money" defies my comprehension.

There's no amount of money that equates to my life. Therefore - just money.

[The Adrian Empire]

...when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in...

This happens. All the time.

Of course, dismiss my argument, it's what debaters call a hypothetical, one that has happened in real life, rarely yes, but as I said, it was less emotionally charged then a school shooting, no one wants to think of kids getting hurt. And of course you are more likely to be armed in a restaurant, then a teacher in a school

[The Adrian Empire]

Because money is just money?

The phrase "'just' money" defies my comprehension.

There's no amount of money that equates to my life. Therefore - just money.

To you, to me that criminal's life is mud as soon as he threatens me, if he doesn't care about my life then I won't care about his, that said I'm not going to shoot a guy just for being in my house, or even taking my wallet, silverware or car, but you know that's not exactly self-defence, I would much rather scare him off, I can do that with a gun.

[The Parkus Empire]

There's no amount of money that equates to my life. Therefore - just money.

*looks at $1,000,000* *looks at GnI*

I dunno....

[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.

A little paranoid, no?

If North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons, the other countries still will have - and North Korea will have nothing to defend themselves with!

Won't someone PLEASE think of North Korea?

Indeed what would keep China from nuking North Korea if they got uppity, or invading them completely, and committing mass genocide of the Korean people's, now North Korea certainly isn't stable enough to get nuclear weapons in my opinion just as I would like background check before one could buy a gun. But, if you asking me that if say Lithuania or Luxembourg wanted to build a nuclear weapon in order to keep their nation independent, we should say no, I disagree.

And Iran. It's really not fair that Israel - who keeps threatening them - is armed, but poor little Iran isn't allowed to defend itself.

It doesn't even want to use them - it just wants equal footing with the other nations that might try to harm them.

Iran is armed, not with nuclear weapons not yet, but they have the technology, and they would have been armed a lot earlier if Israel hadn't preemptively attacked them in the 1970's, but again in most states you aren't allowed to purchase a gun if you intend to commit a crime.

[Grave_n_idle]

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)

Don't most rapes actually occur within the household of the rapist or the victim? Isn't it entirely likely that the victim would be caught without a weapon even if he/she had one - and especially likely since rapes tend to be fairly sudden/surprise attacks, rather than kidnapping or something?

In fact that is when guns can be most useful, again biased source but not a fabricated story
http://gunowners.org/sk0501.htm

The girl in the second story could have achieved the same result with a knife, couldn't she? After all - for some reason, in this 'true story' the rapist didn't apply any restraint, didn't hold her arms or rough her up, didn't notice her obtaining a weapon, and didn't resist her forcing it against his neck.

In fact... unless I could find a damn good corroboration source, I'd write that 'true story' off as unbelievable.

But what you DID present - was evidence that attacks tend to happen when people are unarmed. Eve when they have weapons.

[Grave_n_idle]

...when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in...

This happens. All the time.

Of course, dismiss my argument, it's what debaters call a hypothetical, one that has happened in real life, rarely yes, but as I said, it was less emotionally charged then a school shooting, no one wants to think of kids getting hurt. And of course you are more likely to be armed in a restaurant, then a teacher in a school

Mall shootings. School shootings. Are these hypotheticals really the sort of thing we should be considering as real risks? They're hardly the most common exhibition of gunviolence - they're just the most high profile. But it's cute that you pick the alternative that you think favours your argument - i.e. the one where the person is still more likely to be armed, even if everyone has a gun.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

There's no amount of money that equates to my life.

Then why do you have a job? That's just sellng a portion of your life (in the form of time) for money.

[Grave_n_idle]

There's no amount of money that equates to my life. Therefore - just money.

*looks at $1,000,000* *looks at GnI*

I dunno....

Well, obviously - others might value it differently - indeed, armed robbery pretty RELIES upon that difference in perception.

[The Adrian Empire]

When you're being mugged in the street, it'l take at least ten minutes for the cops to get there...

That has the distinctive appearance of a 'just pulled out of your arse' statistic, don't you think?

It might be a "jpoya" statistic but come on, think about, you don't honestly believe they could respond faster, and even if they could, do you think they could respond in less then 30 seconds to a minute, if not then the argument that police can protect you is moot.

[Grave_n_idle]

There's no amount of money that equates to my life.

Then why do you have a job? That's just sellng a portion of your life (in the form of time) for money.

This sounds like a hijack, since I don't see how this can not end up being a tangent.

I'll answer, but I'm not interested in pursuing this into Bluth territory.

I have a job because my life is worth more than money, but it tends to run aground if I don't do things like feed it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Iran is armed, not with nuclear weapons not yet, but they have the technology, and they would have been armed a lot earlier if Israel hadn't preemptively attacked them in the 1970's, but again in most states you aren't allowed to purchase a gun if you intend to commit a crime.

So - what you're sying is, this victim has ALREADY been attacked by that particular attacker?

Surely they NEED a gun, or nuclear weapons, as the case may be.

[The Parkus Empire]

Then why do you have a job? That's just sellng a portion of your life (in the form of time) for money.

Because not having one would waste the rest of his life?

Besides that, many people (myself, for instance) enjoy their jobs.

[Skeptikosia]

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)

Don't most rapes actually occur within the household of the rapist or the victim? Isn't it entirely likely that the victim would be caught without a weapon even if he/she had one - and especially likely since rapes tend to be fairly sudden/surprise attacks, rather than kidnapping or something?

In fact that is when guns can be most useful, again biased source but not a fabricated story
http://gunowners.org/sk0501.htm

The girl in the second story could have achieved the same result with a knife, couldn't she? After all - for some reason, in this 'true story' the rapist didn't apply any restraint, didn't hold her arms or rough her up, didn't notice her obtaining a weapon, and didn't resist her forcing it against his neck.

In fact... unless I could find a damn good corroboration source, I'd write that 'true story' off as unbelievable.

But what you DID present - was evidence that attacks tend to happen when people are unarmed. Eve when they have weapons.

And if they ban knives?

[Grave_n_idle]

When you're being mugged in the street, it'l take at least ten minutes for the cops to get there...

That has the distinctive appearance of a 'just pulled out of your arse' statistic, don't you think?

It might be a "jpoya" statistic but come on, think about, you don't honestly believe they could respond faster, and even if they could, do you think they could respond in less then 30 seconds to a minute, if not then the argument that police can protect you is moot.

I didn't make that argument, so I don't need to defend it. I attacked the obviously-made-up 'facts'.

[Grave_n_idle]

Then why do you have a job? That's just sellng a portion of your life (in the form of time) for money.

Because not having one would waste the rest of his life?

Besides that, many people (myself, for instance) enjoy their jobs.

This is also true.

[The Parkus Empire]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_a ... ponse_time

[Grave_n_idle]

And if they ban knives?

Have they?

(Whoever the 'they' is).

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I have a job because my life is worth more than money, but it tends to run aground if I don't do things like feed it.

In other words, you trade an increase in free time for various resources. I imagine you make more money than just enough to barely squeeze by, even though the latter gives you more free time. Number one rule of economics, EVERYTHING has a market value. Money is not some magical abstract substance. It's just the representation of the comparitive value of all goods and services.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have a job because my life is worth more than money, but it tends to run aground if I don't do things like feed it.

In other words, you trade an increase in free time for various resources.

No.

And, like I said, take your Bluth-esque meanderings elsewhere. I'm not following your hijack.

[The Adrian Empire]

...when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in...

This happens. All the time.

Of course, dismiss my argument, it's what debaters call a hypothetical, one that has happened in real life, rarely yes, but as I said, it was less emotionally charged then a school shooting, no one wants to think of kids getting hurt. And of course you are more likely to be armed in a restaurant, then a teacher in a school

Mall shootings. School shootings. Are these hypotheticals really the sort of thing we should be considering as real risks? They're hardly the most common exhibition of gunviolence - they're just the most high profile. But it's cute that you pick the alternative that you think favours your argument - i.e. the one where the person is still more likely to be armed, even if everyone has a gun.

I would consider them worthy risks, and I think the victims would too, in a school, there are many adults who could have a gun, I didn't want to accidentally juxtapose myself into saying that I think kids should have guns.

And how many times must I say that I am not saying everyone has a gun, I'm not in favour of supplying everyone with a government issue pistol, training perhaps, a Swiss like system where they purchase their own assault rifle sure, even in a world where every Tom, Dick and Jane can legally get a gun it's likely that at most only Tom and Jane will buy one, but the point remains when Jerry comes in to kill Tom and Dick, Tom has a gun to defend himself.