|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 30 40 ... 51 52 53 54 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:25 PM |
|
|
It was not that way "when things started", by which I assume you mean the stone age. People were not protected against initiation of force and fraud against each other.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:45 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 10:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:48, 17 Jul 2013.
|
|
Ok then, here's another question. Now, one of the people who owned tear gas snapped, used the gas and killed 10.000 people. The law, of course punishes him the most hardest way possible (I don't know if Mvassilevistan has death penalty, but it's either that or life imprisonment). 4 months later, somebody else snapped, this time the death count is just a little lower, 8500. You, again punished the criminal but this thing has started to be seen as a way of getting famous now, so a month later you have another case and 20.000 people die. Now, you have people marching to the capitol holding pictures of death babies and children, protesters, TV stations, academics, all kinds of lobbies are asking for the gas to be banned. Riots start to occur, the more you try to oppress them, the faster they spread. A few university students are shot dead during the protests, they immediately turn into urban legends, people walk to the City Hall and drop flowers in their memory, press covers it every time. If you illegalize the nerve gas, all of this will be over, what do you do?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
JJ:
That's why I'm neither defending the status quo nor suggesting that the law should be what it was in the past.
artu:
A note about punishment - I not only lock up the criminal in prison (and force him to work), I also seize all of his assets and distribute them to the families of the victims, as restitution.
I tell the people I'm going to spend money on the police and FBI, so that tragedies like this could be averted. I don't ban the gas unless the cost of enforcement would be so high that those who would buy the gas would rather not buy it than pay the higher taxes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 11:17 PM |
|
|
|
This is not about expenses. Unless you have some kind of psychic law force like in Minority Report, you wont be able to prevent these things with efficiency.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 11:19 PM |
|
|
Require a tracking device in every canister, and alert the police when it's being moved.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 11:23 PM |
|
|
|
So now it's free to buy the weapon but in the slightest attempt to use it you're breaking the law? How is that not a freedom only in formality, you are, in practice, banning the gun.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2013 11:54 PM |
|
|
The police is being alerted that it's being used so they'd know, not so they'd necessarily arrest the user. If they show up and find out that it's being released in a safe area where there's no danger to other people, no crime has been committed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 12:24 AM |
|
|
|
New technology and hackers make it impossible for the police to track down owners in time. The point is, preventing such crimes with efficiency is not an option and even if it is, the public is not convinced (thousands died, they are outraged) and all that I mentioned is still going on....
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 12:30 AM |
|
|
Outrage alone is an insufficient reason. People can be outraged about a lot of stupid stuff - or fail to be outraged about something really bad. But I expect that if the situation got so bad that people thousands of people are dying in weekly attacks, the risk of dying would (or at least should) outweigh the desire to own nerve gas even for those who want to own it for non-malicious ends. Then, given that they would prefer to not own them if it meant being safe, a ban would be legitimate - but only because the risk is so high that people would rather not own them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 12:41 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:42, 18 Jul 2013.
|
And that is how the absolute fails in real life. You kept on quite good though, it took 38.500 dead and uprising of the whole damn country to change your mind. 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 02:10 AM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 04:38, 18 Jul 2013.
|
Hobbit said:
There, in Poland where buying any real gun legally is very hard to do, almost none say they are "negligent in being the protector of family" without guns. Burglar alarms seem to work here. Now, if in the UK, Poland and many other European countries guns aren't necessary to protect families, why in the USA they are considered almost like something obligatory to live?
you're missing an important point here, along with everyone else who is anti-gun. criminals CAN get guns in our country. they are readily available on the streets. less so than drugs, but more so than other things.
so, if criminals CAN get guns, which of these will protect you:
1. an alarm system.
2. a bulletproof vest.
3. a barking dog.
4. the police.
5. the laws put in place to protect law-abiding citizens.
and, the answers to those questions:
1. alarms can be bypassed, and will not prevent a determined criminal anyway.
2. a bp vest covers your torso. ever heard of a headshot? i mean, really. try to think out your posts before posting them.
3. a well-placed kick, hit with blunt object, stabbed, or shot.
4. the police can get there, sure. but how long does it take them to get to where you live? is the criminal high? does he care?
5. no, obviously not.
so, what is the BEST solution for protecting you and your loved ones from a criminal WHO HAS ACCESS TO FIREARMS?
1 and ONLY answer: A GODDAMN GUN.
i really cannot believe i have to spell this out.
oh, and to answer your question from earlier, zenofex: about taking out a tank with small arms weapons?
no, obviously not. but you can take out a tank's treads with explosive you can make at home. you can also bust a molotov on the air ventilation system grate. then, when the driver comes out for air, your firearms will work nicely. thank you and good night.
read this post REAL CLOSE, anti-gun people. you're NOT getting the obvious. you can debate all day, all night, about the semantics, about the laws, about how things SHOULD be, about the FACT that our country is FAR more free than yours(and the fact that you don't know that, should tell you something about your country, your OWNERS, and your DIFFERENCE from the people of the united states), and in the end, you will forget 1 SIMPLE FACT(repeated again to drive the point home):
a GUN is the BEST protection against an potentially ARMED CRIMINAL.
PERIOD.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 03:41 AM |
|
|
artu:
I didn't change my mind. I never restricted freedom - I would only do it if it were in accordance with the preferences of those who would want to buy nerve gas, so it wouldn't be a reduction of freedom.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 04:12 AM |
|
|
Most gun crime is committed by career criminals. Keep criminals locked up and you greatly cut the crime rate. But we are "too civilized" to do that. We let them out and they commit crimes over and over again.
Clicky
Quote:
More than 200 people have been arrested for homicides that happened in Chicago in 2012 and 15-percent were 14-to-17 years old. Out of the adults, at least 90-percent had an arrest history in Chicago and more than a third of them were previously charged with weapons-related offenses, according to police data.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 05:51 AM |
|
|
|
Really? I had the impression that US has much more severe punishments, life sentence is applied, and in general you get twice the time you get in Europe, not to mention fairies land Sweden where for rape they give a few hours of community service if minor.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 05:53 AM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 05:56, 18 Jul 2013.
|
fred79 said:
you're missing an important point here, along with everyone else who is anti-gun. criminals CAN get guns in our country. they are readily available on the streets. less so than drugs, but more so than other things.
What do you mean by that? That in my country criminals can't get guns? Seriously, I don't get your point at all - here in Poland we do have murderers that use guns. Is it really that surprising?
fred79 said:
so, what is the BEST solution for protecting you and your loved ones from a criminal WHO HAS ACCESS TO FIREARMS?
1 and ONLY answer: A GODDAMN GUN.
Yeah, because if you have "A GODDAMN GUN", you'll definitely win. This criminal will definitely just surrender if he realises you have a gun. So obvious.
Ok, fred, you definitely have no idea that this "obvious point" has been answered already so many times that no one can count it, however I'll ask you this: have you ever shot anyone to protect your family? Have you ever KILLED some criminal? Have you had any opportunity to try if your "obvious solution" really works?
What you're basically saying is that the best way to protect yourself from a pyromaniac is to keep a flamethrower in your bedroom. Throw away your burglar alarm (because it won't work anyway), throw away your bulletproof vest (because it's not really effective), throw away your dog (because it won't protect you anyway), just give a finger to the police and don't care about your law. It's you and your flamethrower - nothing else would stop your family from being burned. Kill fire with fire, obviously.
"If I have a gun, he won't kill me with his gun" - don't you realise how terrifying it actually is? I can tell you that in my country we have such problem with hooligans using knives and machetes (not a big one, but it's definitely a problem). "If I have a machete, he won't kill me with his machete". Yeah, definitely. You know how it turns out? There are more machetes and therefore there are MORE CRIMES. Do you think that I should take another machete to protect myself in case some hooligan would like to kill me?
To be honest, now I'm just disturbed by your words. It's like you either want to kill criminals or just thinking about how nice would it be to shot a criminal. Or, I don't know, maybe you're just seeking for some valid reasons for buying some awesome rifle that makes you manlier. Whatever it is, it's just sick.
***
@Elodin, just... read the whole article, please. Don't just pick some sentences and ignore the rest. Please.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 05:58 AM |
|
|
I don't know why are you disturbed by his logic, he is right. Once guns are legalized,the best defense is having a gun myself and go offensive before I get shot. The whole problem is having them legalized or no. In Europe they aren't, so a criminal carrying a gun is a rare fact. Thus alarm systems, dogs, fences, are a more suitable way to prevent burglars.
Anyway, if in Europe you shot someone (unarmed) getting in your house, it is you who go in prison. So you don't have much the choice.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 12:25 PM |
|
|
fred79 said:
you're missing an important point here, along with everyone else who is anti-gun. criminals CAN get guns in our country. they are readily available on the streets. less so than drugs, but more so than other things.
You're welcome to try. Come to Poorland and prove me wrong
No, it's not easy to get a gun here. You have to be from mafia, and those don't mug random apartments.
Idk, you can check Poorland's police records if you don't believe me. "Armed robbery" is a knife, bat or a FALSE gun most of the time. If it was so easy to get a gun, don't you think regular muggers wouldn't?
Apparently our muggers are smarter than yours and use the element of surprise
Idk how many times I have to stress this: if someone presses a hard object to your back and demands money, you can have a shotgun, you can have a toothpick - both are of the same value. And you know what muggers use here? Yep, element of surprise. Why would they risk up you picking on a fight and winning if they can simply surprise you and make you do whatever they want?
You guys watch too much Hollywood movies where the protagonist is 100% aware of someone in his house/vicinity all the damn time and he always manages to shoot first, too. The assaulter is always alone and helpless.
fred79 said:
so, what is the BEST solution for protecting you and your loved ones from a criminal WHO HAS ACCESS TO FIREARMS?
1 and ONLY answer: A GODDAMN GUN.
i really cannot believe i have to spell this out.
Of course the criminal who has access to firearms will just run at you and you'll gun him down 100% of the time before he does the same to you.
He doesn't think, he cannot just wait till you're asleep, away, distracted. He cannot bring friends who will outgun you. He cannot surprise you.
Idk, if I were to rob you, I'd wait till you go on vacation. If I were to kill you, I'd slit your throat in your sleep. Obviously in a place where EVERYBODY has a gun, I'd expect you to have one, and plan accordingly?
What makes you think criminals are so retarded that they can't plan forward, or even simply bring armed friends of their own? Three shotguns to one, you lose.
The whole idea of home defense is to PREVENT a situation where you have to put your life on a gamble of "who shoots first" by getting things that actually REPEL the criminals. If your home has dogs and an alarm, it's simply a hard nut to crack and most of the time a softer target will be picked instead.
Quote:
a GUN is the BEST protection against an potentially ARMED CRIMINAL.
PERIOD.
If he's retarded, yes. Otherwise? haha. Nice joke.
a gun MIGHT BE a last resort against a SINGLE opponent and you need a hell of a luck to pull it out seeing that a thinking criminal plans to SURPRISE YOU to maximize his chances.
Alarms and dogs have one thing in common: they are expendable, and they either never sleep (alarms) or are pretty hard to surprise (dogs). Humans are the weakest link of a defense grid, every time, all the time. Yet you place them in 1st place. Oh well. Hope you'll never learn the hard way how much of a failure our senses can be.
Shotgun (or any weapon at all) is last resort. If someone (and his armed friends) found a way around your alarm and dog, he's pretty determined and PROBABLY smart enough to expect you to be armed. Hell, if he bypasses a modern alarm system, he's extremely smart already, so you can be 100% sure he has a plan to deal with you and your gun. I don't know where you get knowledge about alarm systems, but my father installs them for good 20 years, and let me know you: they were pretty much impossible to bypass 20 years ago, and they are even more impossible now. Throughout those 20 years, we never EVER had a single one failing.
Not that we have a lot of "home assaults" in the first place (read: next to none).
For some reason, the majority of the Europeans doesn't have a gun "to protect their loved ones" and we somehow manage to live without fear of "home assaults" and stuff. Doesn't that make you wonder, at all, why does it work like that?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 02:12 PM |
|
|
|
Fred, not that I fully agree with him but don't you think what DF is trying to tell you may be that if you change your laws and make it harder to get guns, IN TIME, the situation you also seem to complain about can change into something similar to Germany where kids walk to school without getting paranoid. Just think of it, Germany isn't the island of Dominica, has quite the immigration itself and I'm sure it also has gangs and perverts and burglars.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2013 02:20 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 14:32, 18 Jul 2013.
|
Okay, fred, now I want you to read my whole post BEFORE responding to it, because it wouldn't work any other way. If you read the whole text, you will understand what I'm talking about.
fred79 said:
if you aren't allowed to, i could imagine a much higher sense of fear among law-abiding citizens. [...] i didn't say i'd definitely win. what i DID say, was that HAVING a gun is my best defense against a potentially armed criminal. it's definitely better than NOT having a gun, is it not? [...] story time... [...] exactly. fight fire with fire. [...] i am sorry you apparently aren't allowed to carry guns.
I'm sorry that such story happened to you, but there's actually a big problem: you don't deny that you were aggressive to these guys. They didn't bring up any weapon until you showed them that YOU had a weapon. You were trying to show them who's the strong guy (like I said - "If I had a weapon and they knew it, I would be safe" logic), but actually you RAN AWAY anyway. Because they were provoked by you. That's why this fourth guy with gun appeared - he wouldn't be there if there were no danger that three other guys weren't cut. In fact, there wouldn't be any of these problems if you got better solution, like not provoking these guys.
Did you notice that you were "getting really angry at their persistence"? Haven't you thought about that maybe THEY ALSO WERE ANGRY because of YOUR PERSISTENCE? That's how I see it: it could end well (not perfectly, but still better than this) if you wasn't actually attacking them. No, it's not self-defense what you were doing - your whole story is about beating these guys up because of "an altercation" with them. It's the same logic THEY came up with when they tried to beat you up. It's a perpetuum mobile of anger - they got angry so you got angry so they got angrier so you were even more angrier and so on. Did it actually work? No - because you had to escape them, so it turned out like if you didn't have any weapon anyway. In fact, if you had a gun and these guys noticed it, this fourth guy would probably kill you before you'd kill him.
That's how it actually works. You can't always rely on your strength and be aggressive and nervous, becasue there's always a bigger fish who eventually would be pissed off because of your actions. How hard is that to understand?
And it's not like I just came up with these things by "simple logic"...
fred79 said:
funny how you don't see the point you just made. what do you think would happen if you were attacked by people with weapons, if you DIDN'T HAVE A WEAPON TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH? that's a surefire way to get killed, hobbit.
Here's where this discussion starts to be really funny. I actually was in such situation - I was attacked by people with weapons and I didn't have any weapon to defend myself with. Somehow I live now, and I'll explain you why.
In simple words: I've been setting with my girlfriend somewhere in her town in a park, it was 6 p.m., and there were two guys, some hooligans seeking for some "fun". One of them came up to me and suddenly put a knife near my throat threating me, I'm not really sure why. The point is: he could easily kill me by just pushing a knife towards me. Now, let's analyze three situations - the first one actually happened, two others are just "What if".
1) I didn't have any weapon and I couldn't defend myself in any possible way, so I just waited for the opportunity to push him away and escape these guys. My gf told me later that I had no fear on my face, I'm not sure if this is really true, but this one guy somehow calmed down, gave his knife to the other guy and tried to beat me up. I managed to defend myself with not harming him a lot, because, you know, this other guy had a knife and could be provoked by that. So I was safe for a moment, then this guy wanted to beat up my gf. Again - I just pushed him away, and that's where the real fight started because that other guy tried to attack me with his knife.
Sure, I got beaten up by them and I had some health problems after that, but I managed to defend myself and prevent them from killing me. I'm pretty sure they didn't want to kill me anyway, because I wasn't really any kind of danger and that couldn't give them any profit anyway. So, I'm alive now.
2) Suppose I had a knife, as you want me to have. Okay, I have a knife, but this guy still has a knife near my throat. If he saw my weapon, he could realise he's in danger and try to kill me instantly. So, I'd be dead right now, and you wouldn't even know about it.
But what if I just waited for him to take that knife away and then tried to threaten him? Well, they still got the knife, so that would be about if I was stronger and better than both of them. Both of them were pretty tough, so I had more than 50% chances to lose. So, I'd be dead right now, and you wouldn't even know about it.
3) Suppose the guns were legal in Poland and I had one. Okay, but they could easily get one too. And police wouldn't do anything about that anyway, because even if they looked suspicious there would be no law to prevent them from having such gun. So actually it would be easier for them to kill me in the first place - because, you know, killing anyone with a gun is way more easy than killing anyone with anything else. It's simpler and faster. So, I'd be dead right now, and you wouldn't even know about it.
But if they somehow had only a knife and I had a gun, would it make the whole situation any different? They still could threaten me, and my only way to prevent them from killing me is to hide my gun, wait for them to take their knife away from my throat, and then not even threaten them with my gun (because they still could attack me pretty quickly - it's not like they would run away and make it easier to shoot them, they would definitely try to stop me) - but to KILL THEM in the first place.
Now, would it make me safier? Maybe, it's rather fifty-fifty since there could be a bigger fish. But first of all, that would make me a GODDAMN MURDERER, and second - would it be necessary? Seeing how the first point worked pretty well (not perfectly, but still - I'M ALIVE), I think that it wouldn't be necessary, so it would only give me more nightmares than I already had. If it didn't, that would make me a psycho.
The whole moral of this story is: I'm so glad that I didn't have any weapon because if I had, it would end up very badly for me anyway. Here's your law - I almost died because of some hooligans and still feel safier than if guns without permission were legal. Funny, eh?
But that's not the end - you seem to be a very nervous person, fred, and that makes me wonder what would happen if YOU were in such situation as I've been. My guess is: you'd be dead right now, and I wouldn't even know about it. Because you'd provoke them to actually kill you. Or you'd just **** your pants, do absolutely nothing about it and your weapon would be useless anyway.
Whatever it would be, my question is: is it really about having a weapon to protect yourself, or maybe it's just about your BEHAVIOUR when you're in danger? I'm pretty sure I'm alive because of the second one, and I'm pretty sure you're alive because of your legs.
Still against banning guns?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
| |
|
|
