|
| Thread: Civilian's right to have a weapon. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted May 04, 2008 03:54 AM |
|
|
Especially the criminals.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 03:56 AM |
|
|
That's a generalization based upon nothing...
You're changing your argument, I don't understand...
First you talk about taking a civilians life
Quote:
I am absolutely amazed at how many people think that a criminal's life
Then when I respond to that you flip it back on the fact that it's not taking a criminals life at all
Quote:
So owning a gun automatically means you are going to take a life if attacked?
Then I respond to that and you forget the point you were making and flip it back to the criminals are the ones taking the life... when at first you were arguing that lives aren't taken at all because the guns are supposed to protect you?
I'm not sure what your contention is other than to undermine mine.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 05:29 AM |
|
|
First off, that generalization isn't much different that the generalizations you've been making.
Secondly, I haven't forgotten my argument. I gave up trying to argue it seriously. I've argued with plenty of anti-gun people and rarely does either side change their opinion on the matter. But why hold back?
You live in Australia right? Why exactly were guns banned? The Port Artuher masscare. 35 killed, 37 wounded. Before that one particular incident, your country was ok with guns. In response to the public outrcry, your legislature banned citizens from owning weapons, forceably removing them from the populace. Did that make things safer? Within two years, armed robberies went up 44%. (Phyllis Schlafly, The Lessons of History-The Founding Fathers on Right to Bear Arms, 6/00 http://www.rense.com/general2/right.htm) Why would the rates spike? Because the criminals knew the citizens lost an effective means to defend themselves. Didn't take long for the criminals to capitalize on it. The criminals continued to be armed, and the citizens suffered even more for it. So how exactly does banning guns make anything better? All it does is make you easier targets for the criminals.
The argument I've been trying to make is that it's wrong to ban law-abiding citizens from owning guns. It leaves them at a severe disadvantage to the criminals, who despite what you may say, are out to harm them. And harm isn't just physical. If you think crime is as simple as that, you are sorely mistaken. You've argued that human life, even criminal life, is more valuable than the rights of law-abiding citizens. I think that a law-abiding citizen's rights easily outweigh a criminal's. That's where the problem is. You can't convince me that a violent criminal's life is worth anything and I can't convince you that a citizen's right to their property and to be safe in their own home trumps a criminal's right not to be killed while faciliating a crime.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 06:15 AM |
|
|
For a start, stealing does not equal violence.
Financial harm is entirely different to physical harm or violence. And while it can be just as bad, it's can't be entirely prevented. Robberies will occur, with guns or without. If your argument is that guns should prevent these, then there is only one feasible outcome: you shoot every criminal.
I understand your argument that this is an acceptable outcome, but I believe, and have stated before, that there are compromises that don't involve replacing all armed robberies with murders.
In fact, Australian citizens never had a constitutional right to bear arms, gun ownership was restricted to certain groups such as hunting etc, not the general public. So any black and white percentage statistics claiming a proportionality between taking away guns in 1997 and armed robbery rates are, by default, skewed as the general Australian public didn't own firearms even before the buyback anyway.
Armed robberies went up 44%. Not armed robbery rates. This doesn't factor in the rapid population increase of Australia at the time. In fact homocide rates even slowed around the time of the 1997 buy back, and Australia-wide homocide rates with firearms has been the lowest in over ten years, and according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, armed robbery rates with firearms actually steadily declined.
1995- %27.8
1996- %25.3
1997- %24.1
1998- %17.6
1999- %15.2
2000- %14.0
The bottom line is that even if there were a clear increase in armed robberies or homicides in Australia, the parallel can't necessarily be drawn to USA where the situation is entirely different.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 06:29 AM |
|
|
OmegaDestroyer should know better than to submit Phyllis Schlafly as a credible reference
But then again, you argued in favor of the special enemy combatant status accorded to the prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay. I am going to assume that you are in favor of torture as well.
As for guns here in the U.S., they're here to stay. Gun ownership is part of our national heritage and even the Supreme Court has decided the 2nd amendment does not merely extend to state militias, but to all Americans.
However, I am a believer in states' rights. States should be able to decide when and how to regulate guns. Citizens of states that allow for conceal and carry should be allowed to make that decision. What works for one region may not work for another.
It is possible for a society to be gun loving and responsible about it. We're just not there yet.
____________
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 06:42 AM |
|
|
It does appear she was not a good source after all.
And yes, you are correct on the torture part Gootch.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 02:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But in practice nearly all people will. They will shoot, often to kill.
And in practice, burglars & criminals are more sensitive and dangerous than you think 
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 04:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't convince you that a citizen's right to their property and to be safe in their own home trumps a criminal's right not to be killed while faciliating a crime.
Why is a citizen not safe if he hasn't a gun? He's a hell of a lot more safe without a gun! I think my example earlier is not completly out of touch with reality thus a showdown between a a armed citizen and a armed criminal will end in one person dead! Even if the citizen doesn't kill the criminal the criminal will shoot back if he gets the chance. And then you have the situation that the citizen will maybe lose his life depending on the marksmenship of the criminal. This wouldn't have happend without the gun would it?
@TheDeath
Sorry but I don't think it that way. Most criminals are not lunatics out there to hurt you, they are out there to rob you. And even if you get finacially destroyed (which I doubt happens during most robberys) you are still alive. I think that's worth more (...and no of course not every robery where the citizen owns a gun will end in him being dead but the chance is waaaay higher than it he wouldn't have one).
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is a citizen not safe if he hasn't a gun? He's a hell of a lot more safe without a gun! I think my example earlier is not completly out of touch with reality thus a showdown between a a armed citizen and a armed criminal will end in one person dead! Even if the citizen doesn't kill the criminal the criminal will shoot back if he gets the chance. And then you have the situation that the citizen will maybe lose his life depending on the marksmenship of the criminal. This wouldn't have happend without the gun would it?
Who said anything about 'shooting'? You can threaten each others with a gun (or if you catch him unprepared), and wait until a police handcuffs him.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who said anything about 'shooting'? You can threaten each others with a gun (or if you catch him unprepared), and wait until a police handcuffs him.
Do you seriously believe that the two will stand in front of each other and threaten each other? One of them is bound to panic.
If the burglar is unexperienced he for sure will panic -> shooting. Either the burglar on the owner or the owner on the criminal who's trying to escape. Then we have the posibily of death. If he is an expert he a)most probably wouldn't be caught by surprise b)will get a chance to shoot the house owner. Or isn't this realistic?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the burglar is unexperienced he for sure will panic -> shooting.
Well in this case, he'll most likely be dead too. Therefore he will not be thinking clearly -- and even without guns, not thinking clearly can have dire consequences
Quote:
b)will get a chance to shoot the house owner. Or isn't this realistic?
I thought he did not want to kill you but rob you.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 04, 2008 04:49 PM |
|
|
Well yes you are right but these situation exists only because the owner is armed.
Again in most of the cases he is there to rob you and not to hurt you (as I said previously). And what I've said does not conflict with that because the moment you are armed as well you create a situation in which one of two is forced to act. This will result in one of the situation described above (I think). He doesn't shoot at you because he wants to hurt you but because he is panicing/ willingly shooting you because he wants to save himself. This wouldn't happen if you hadn't have had a gun!
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 07:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Who said anything about 'shooting'? You can threaten each others with a gun (or if you catch him unprepared), and wait until a police handcuffs him.
Didn't you say before that they would rather shoot you than go to jail... then they're not going to wait around for the police.
According to your own prior logic:
2 People with guns = 1 person dead.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 07:22 AM |
|
|
So let me get this straight if I can. There is no way that a person can know the motives of a criminal, nor how they will react. But they should cooperate despite this fact, and despite the fact that there are some real psychos out there. So a person should say let a criminal come in, violate their kids/loved ones/or themselves. Chance death if the person is unstable, and just shrug it off. Interesting.
I totally agree that material things are not worth getting hurt for, nor killing for. Again, however, there is no way of knowing that a criminal will be content with that. Most might be, but there are more then a few who would not be.
I would be the first to hand over material wealth or things rather then commit violence. Material things just don't mean that much to me. My own wellbeing is also not much concern to me, so I would cooperate if that was all that was at stake. When my family is concerned, however, I feel that it is a whole nother ballgame. I would kill or be killed trying to protect them. If that makes me 'evil' so be it.
Now this issue is about common people having handguns. The reason I think they should have them is clear. To protect their family from harm. Chances are even if somebody is shot, the rest of the family will be safe, for this would frighten off the intruders. They would be fearful that somebody nearby heard and called the law. Thus at least giving a CHANCE for the rest of the family to be protected.
Criminals will not loose the chance to gain access to weapons, regardless of whatever law passed. See drugs for example, despite being illegal, criminals have easy access to them. The only people affected would be law abiding citizens, who then might be at the mercy of psychopaths. I know, here comes the 'fear' thing again. That is just a buzzword. Every time somebody wants to convince you to think their way the bring out "Your just afraid."
No, I don't fear harm or death. What comes will come, regardless of what I do. There is no harm in prepairing for the worse and hoping for the best. 
____________
Message received.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 07:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So a person should say let a criminal come in, violate their kids/loved ones/or themselves. Chance death if the person is unstable, and just shrug it off. Interesting.
Sorry, I got to here and realized this wasn't going to be a logical argument.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 07:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, I got to here and realized this wasn't going to be a logical argument.
I got to here and realized you are correct. There would be no logical argument
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 08:30 AM |
|
|
I think I could get rich harvesting all the bull**** in this thread and selling it for fertilizer.
Most of the people in this thread have no idea what the hell they are talking about. They are just making things up with no background information whatsoever.
Repeat after me: Television is not real. Television is not real. Television is not real.
Gunfights? Like at the OK Corral? That's funny
____________
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 08:41 AM |
|
|
Who mentioned gunfights?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 09:00 AM |
|
|
Yasmiel was the only one who used that specific word. But half the people in this thread are using "logic" based on the very false assumption that just because the occupant of a home has a gun that shots are going to be fired and someone is going to get killed. That is FAR from reality.
The idea of owning a gun isn't to kill someone, or even shoot at them. The idea is to PREVENT the crime. And in the vast majority of cases that's exactly what will happen. The simple act of showing a gun will stop the crime.
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 05, 2008 09:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The idea of owning a gun isn't to kill someone, or even shoot at them. The idea is to PREVENT the crime. And in the vast majority of cases that's exactly what will happen. The simple act of showing a gun will stop the crime.
If this would be true, why do the U.S.A. have such a high rate of dead people who got shot? And on the other hand, countries with very restrictive gun laws have numbers close to zero?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
|
|
