Gun Laws

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by adamark

Well, aren't you smug. So I should just be happy to have my life? Nevermind that I had to stand by, in my OWN house, while some burglar tore the fuckin place up, and I couldn't do a damn thing to stop him except dial a stupid telephone because all I had was an improvised weapon which he easily could have trumped. I'm just soooo fortunate, I should just feel privileged that Mr. Robber played nice and didn't whip out a gun on me and shoot because I picked up the phone.

Well, I guess you should be happy to have your life, provided you like living, and it sounds like you do. Are you saying your only satisfaction can be derived from killing the robber?

I once got the shit kicked out of me on my own driveway. Not exactly a lethal fight, but things can turn lethal in a split second or without people wanting them to. It's a shame I couldn't just have pulled out my gun and blown the other kid's head off. Except no, I don't feel justified at all in doing that.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Mesden

I'm pretty sure a guy with a gun could shoot me if I ran at him with a metal stick.

Just sayin'.

Yes, generally.

But do you know Billy the Kid once emptied a revolver from three feet away at a bank teller, and he missed six times?

I mean, not all of us are marksmen.

And I've taken a Tae-Kwon-Do. With a very heavy self-defense bent. I was ably shown once that a guy with a gun, from fifteen feet away, can get off one shot before you reach him and can disarm him.

If you're more than six or seven feet away, however, you run like hell in the most erratic patern possible while still going away from the gun.

Self-defense isn't about killing the other person. It's about getting away from them, or if you can't do that, disabling them.

EDIT: And to compound it even further, like, .001% of criminals are cold-blooded killers that would actually pull a trigger without hesitation. Panic shots can kill you, sure, but it's the equivalent of closing your eyes and firing a pistol one-handed in someone's general direction.

EDIT2:

Originally Posted by Me

.001%

Before anyone says anything, I made that up, yes.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Well, if it helps, his argument that the legalization of private gun ownership reduces crime because potential criminals might decide not to rob people because the possibility exists that a potential victim might own a gun themselves is flawed because that possibility would exist whether firearms were legal or not.

The owner of the house you're planning to rob might be in illegal possession of a gun. Or he might just come up behind you and stab you in the neck. Or his hypothetical pit bull could maul you. Or countless other scenarios.

This is like comparing the likelihood of a small invisible death trained rabbit attacking you from a window when you're walking through a small town to the likelihood of a mugging in New York.

Your evaluation is flawed, and, indeed, Kennesaw Georgia proves the fact: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

But do you know Billy the Kid once emptied a revolver from three feet away at a bank teller, and he missed six times?

With a revolver from the wild west that had been used and taken care of poorly. Shitty weapons do not an arguement make. Also, I'm not sure what you're arguing here--that it's totally ok to run at some guy with a gun with a metal pipe 'cause he might be half blind and miss you with all sixteen rounds his semi-automatic nine millimeter has in it?

Could we stop the silly hypothetical stuff, seriously? It's silly.

And I've taken a Tae-Kwon-Do. With a very heavy self-defense bent. I was ably shown once that a guy with a gun, from fifteen feet away, can get off one shot before you reach him and can disarm him.

A pump action shot-gun, MAYBE, but a pistol will get off about six rounds per second. You can't react and move fifteen feet in under a second, and then grab a gun and disarm it. You will have to dodge about four or five bullets on the way. You're going to get shot.

You were shown bullshit.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Krylo

This is like comparing the likelihood of a small invisible death trained rabbit attacking you from a window when you're walking through a small town to the likelihood of a mugging in New York.

Your evaluation is flawed, and, indeed, Kennesaw Georgia proves the fact: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

...And how many have been killed due to other, gun-related things?

Just curious, really.

[Krylo]

After a lot of searching the only thing I could find was this: http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archi...un_debate.html

It states there were zero gun deaths. No criminals were shot yet the crime rate still dropped. There have also been no accidental deaths or criminals shooting other people. Which is why I posted it in conflict with the whole "The threat of getting shot doesn't stop burglars."



Note: It doesn't work in most places, because in most places the criminals don't know every single person has a gun, so they can--more or less safely--take their chances and break into a house, only finding out that the gun is there after the fact, and then things escalate. I'm also not sure if it would work if it was country or worldwide, because then the criminals no longer have the option of committing crime where people are less likely to have guns... but it does show that the fear of a homeowner with a gun has a positive effect on safety.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Yes, but I think having a gun in every house might work for that particular community, but imagine everyone having a gun in, say, New York.

*shudders*

It can be a deterrant to crime, but it also could possibly lead to murder just as frequently.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Krylo

This is like comparing the likelihood of a small invisible death trained rabbit attacking you from a window when you're walking through a small town to the likelihood of a mugging in New York.

Your evaluation is flawed, and, indeed, Kennesaw Georgia proves the fact: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts

And then later....

Originally Posted by Krylo

It doesn't work in most places, because in most places the criminals don't know every single person has a gun, so they can--more or less safely--take their chances and break into a house, only finding out that the gun is there after the fact, and then things escalate.

I shouldn't have to explain this further as Krylo has already argued away his own point for me, but a guarantee that there's a gun in the house preventing crime is entirely different from the possibility that a gun might be in the house preventing crime.

One is entirely plausible, the other is far less likely.

Furthermore, an itty bitty town with an almost nonexistent violent crime rate having a further decrease in crime isn't really substantial evidence supporting any argument whatsoever.

[Seil]

Guns are made to hurt and otherwise kill things. I don't like them for that reason, and I don't think anyone should have them.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Originally Posted by Mr.Bookworm

Yes, but I think having a gun in every house might work for that particular community, but imagine everyone having a gun in, say, New York.

Everyone does have a gun in New York.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

Everyone does have a gun in New York.

Now imagine it being mandatory to have a loaded gun in New York.

EDIT:

Guns are made to hurt and otherwise kill things. I don't like them for that reason, and I don't think anyone should have them.

I totally agree with Seil.

Guns, along with swords, and a few other weapons, are one of the very small percentage of weapons designed totally to kill something.