U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2008, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
nice way you skirted a direct question.
You noticed that, did ya!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2008, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
what the heck kind of response was this? your statement makes absolutely no sense at all.
Perhaps, it is the response of someone who is in a chemically induced delusional state?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 11:10 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,831,584 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by stycotl And I simply worry about everyone with a gun.
If you don't have a gun you won't increase the chances of people doing something stupid with it.
The more people carry guns, the more the chance that someone will do something stupid increases.

The fact that people act emotionally while believing that they act rationally.
but that is by no means an argument as to why you keep making such broad, unsupported, condemning statements. everyone acts emotionally, even you, even the coolest people on the planet. in fact, even trained soldiers that know how to judge the criteria for deadly force. but, you notice that the majority of them aren't out there shooting up buses and malls. why, because your theory is not reality; people are not as emotionally fragile as you need them to be in order to justify these weapon bans.

Quote:
Whether panic and fear is subjective or not is irrelevant because they are real to the individual who experiences them.
The trick is to acknowledge that you are panicking or acting out of fear.
Most people are either too macho or too twitchy to use a gun responsibly.
bull. you are again making huge judgments with nothing to back it up. have you ever gone through any kind of course or training on how to deal with the escalation of force in a potentially violent situation? do you think that you would so poorly handle such a situation? you must, since you seem to think that everyone else would too.

not only that, but if *most* people are too twitchy/macho as you claim, then why do so many of them carry and utilize weapons responsibly? answer me that if you answer nothing else. does this go back to your idea that all of us are just felons in disguise, hoping that the feds aren't around the corner with an arrest warrant?

Quote:
I guess the big difference between you and me is that you believe to be (completely?) defenceless without a gun.
nope. but again, this goes directly to the black-and-white, all-or-nothing mentality that you are showing about this issue. you are telling us that gun owners as a group look to guns as their first line of defense. how then do you explain the locks on my doors? the lights on at night? the motion sensors? the dog? the combat training that i had in the marine corps? the pepper spray that my wife carries? and above all, the ability that i have to open my mouth, which i have used before to successfully end a potential threat? if a gun were my first line of defense, i wouldn't need any of these, would i?

it is very insulting to the majority of us out here, even the ones that don't own guns since you are lumping us all into one large group of stupidity, when you broadcast over and over that we (americans, though i wonder if you mean the rest of the world too) are not emotionally or mentally capable of judging the situations that we face in daily life, and distinguishing the ones that can be overcome with rational thought from the ones that require violent action.

even more than insulting though, it is just plain wrong. it is an ignorant refusal to look at the facts, companied by your continual logical fallacies (most people, americans, all gun owners, etc).

our brains are the best defense that we have. but even our brains can see--if we are willing to be honest with ourselves--that there comes a point when violence would be necessary in order to insure the protection of your loved ones. if the local gangs ever come to my door, expecting to find a timid and pliant victim, they will get quite a surprise. even if i am away from any kind of gun at the time, their task is not going to be an easy one, and my wife is as determined as i am.

Quote:
b&e = breaking & entering.
The only way you can stop crime (or at least contain it) is by making sure nobody lives under the poverty line and make sure that everyone will get social security.
And when people are intend on using drugs you either give them methadone or make sure they od.
Crack heads will only drag down society.
social equality will not create a crime-free nation. period. it will help. but there will always be the criminal mind among human society. you even confirmed that in one of your later posts, when asked about the snotty rich kids that rob houses and shoot people up for kicks. you had an excuse for them. how many others are you going to have to make excuses for when society becomes equal, and violent crime is still a part of daily life?

Quote:
Most (poor) people who are career criminals (with the exception of white collar criminals and adrenaline junkies) commit crime because they see it as a necessary evil.
show me the research on that claim, and i'll grant it the benefit of the doubt. till then, you are making more claims that haven't a leg to stand on. most poor criminals that i've encountered (and i have worked with a decent number through my time in church, charity organizations, youth mentoring, etc), do it because that is what they know. even when offered the chance to clean up, to accept outside help, they continue on their path. it is not because crime is what they need to survive. you are trying to paint a noble, robin hood/jean valjean picture here, but it doesn't work because real life stands in the way of this ideal setting you seem to be concocting.

Quote:
Nope, because you Americans already have the death penalty and guns are already easily available but you still have lotsa violent gun crimes.
death penalty is only good for a certain, small, number of crimes, and it is possible to get off even on those. and it is not even nationwide. i wasn't necessarily saying that we need more death penalty-meting laws, but that the pc crap that currently handicaps our legal system should be shot down. when the criminals live their days eating better food than our poor, watching tv, downloading porn on the net, and basically living better than some of our middle class--when they start to work hard to earn their stay in the prison system that they belong to, then i will consider it sufficient.

but whatever, we're getting sidetracked here.

Quote:
Attack the cause (poverty) and not the symptom (crime).
agreed. but that doesn't at all mean 'disarm the lawfuls', now does it?

Quote:
Are you serious?
If there's a country that is too soft on criminals it would be The Netherlands and yet we have no drive-by shootings or student shootings.

A starving man would rather commit a crime than starve to death.
Besidez, American society is completely f*cked up if people actually believe that they cannot survive without being part of a gang.
Unfortunately this is the case for your American people who live in ghettos and your prison population.
again, bull. i grew up in a drug/gang-problem area, and i didn't need to join in order to be protected. where are you getting this info from? tv crime dramas? hollywood movies?

i am sure that there are neighborhoods that this is true in, but they certainly aren't anywhere close to where i grew up. but again, that undermines your point. your theory requires the usa to be so screwed up that we--as a nation--need to be a part of the problem in order to be protected from the gangs. nope. not even remotely true. that is not even universal in cities like la and nyc. that is a problem of certain areas within certain large cities that have a lot more compartively safe area than dangerous. so your claim does not hold water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte So far it works fine in The Netherlands.
We still have crime, but no drive-by shootings or student shootings like in the US or other countries where guns are readily available.
or japan, or moscow, or dc or anywhere else, right? right?

so if gun crime can be stopped, even if other kinds of violent crime are rampant--even rising to replace gun crime--then that justifies getting rid of guns from the lawful citizens that, ahem.... *aren't part of the problem!*

not to mention the fact that in most places, gun crime still hasn't gone down. so, who're we fooling here?

Quote:
In short: Crime is not an individual problem but a problem with society.
again, agreed. but that does not hinge on the ownership of guns, not even remotely.

your argument hangs on the idea that legal gun owners are irresponsible, stupid (or unintelligent, i can't remember the word you used), and are harming society. so again, what harm have i or my family inflicted on society with our weapons? you didn't answer that one last time, even with my request. i'd like to hear your reasoning. is it merely the physical presence of the weapons, that even if they are not involved in an incident, they are steering people around them to do bad? obviously the effect can't be too powerful, since as i mentioned earlier, my family is felon-free. but we own lots of guns total, and according to your theory, that creates problems. so where are the problems? how can we be responsible gun owners, which we obviously are? that seems to fly in the face of your argument.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 05:28 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,319,821 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Greatday No I won't because it is all connected with each other.
Hitler started WWII because of what happened in WWI.
You can't disconnect the past from the present.

It is a fact that your government has failed you by allowing there to be a segregation between the poor and the rich instead of closing (or narrowing) the gap between them they've only widened it.
Your government has also refused to take care of their mentally ill ( including war veterans) which results in the fact that the American individual has to clean up the mess (and pay the costs) their government has made.
Who pays for it if the Gov't pays? Your gov't has no money it doesn't take from you, if they pay you pay. Simple really.
How is the Gov't responsible for a lack of productivity of parts of its population?

Whats any of this got to do with the subject at hand?

You are really out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 01:00 PM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,864 posts, read 7,096,377 times
Reputation: 1543
I wish these were my Kids:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2008, 05:41 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,490,175 times
Reputation: 1846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
So far no luck but the, SCOTUS has already ruled that a felon cant be compelled to register a gun because it violates his 5th amendment rights.
So, as I already noted your registration scheme would effect no one who disobeys the law.



NRA-ILA :: Firearm Fact Card 2008 (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=83 - broken link)

Now, I'm not finished looking but dont expect to find the case I mentioned. Its really not important. Its obvious that thinking registration will effect crime is stupid. At best it'll be one more charge to tack on & plea down after someones already going to jail.
You bring the NRA. Ok look,
CDC states that the studies were inconclusive because the studies were flawed.

Again, just because you repeat it does not make it true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2008, 11:16 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 18,513,116 times
Reputation: 9490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
Some feel just as strongly about abortion and the 2nd amendment. Don't underestimate the emotions around abortion.
Someday history books may treat Eric Rudolph as a John Brown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2008, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 4,366,654 times
Reputation: 1418
To answer the question "why" I'd guess that there have been more restrictions in the 20th century because America is a relatively young country. Most nations were well established when guns were either invented or became prolific. With towns and established law and order the citizenry in other countries had less need for guns than the Americans did while settling the frontiers, facing native's, and the "wild" west. Our country was founded with guns in hand and we have been a gun culture ever since.

Some progressive thinking, overly-optimistic people think that we can undo all that by restricting gun ownership. Ideally, we wouldn't need guns. But we've had them for so long that to take them away feels like we're losing rights. I wish we could be more like those countries that neither had gun rights nor a need for them, but I'm not giving up my pistols and I don't expect anyone else to.

What's ironic is that those governments fear their unarmed citizens and bend to their will, whereas we armed citizens fear our government.

With that said, there has been increasing leniency recently towards concealed carry rights. In that respect, we're getting less restrictive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2008, 04:00 PM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,864 posts, read 7,096,377 times
Reputation: 1543
Thank god for that. I want to see one in every 4 people armed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2008, 03:40 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 18,513,116 times
Reputation: 9490
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanek9freak View Post
Thank god for that. I want to see one in every 4 people armed.
So why would we have to defend the other three?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top