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 06-23-2009, 04:56 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
Yep, we did this when GD opened up. I'm not going to move/your not going to move. It then becomes boring.
True to an extent. But I'd move if another position made sense & wasn't basically already in existence as a paper trail already is. But the fact is that, just as you cant trace a criminal thru car registrations if he steals the car you cant trace a criminal if he gets his weapons thru illegal means.





Quote:
Tin- post #760 cleary states an elderly woman was involved and there are no elderly victims in that account, are there? In fact, search as much as you want it, your not going to find an elderly victim in there. Therefore, it was necessary to create a fictive account of an event to prove a point. It wasn't your post. You can defend it, deny it, I don't care one way or the other. The fact of the matter is that it did not have an elderly woman in there. Talk about an attempt to use an emotional argument.
So young people dont count? GD didn't link to what he was talking about & it could have been another incident. The fact remains that people were attacked & successfully defended themselves with firearms & thats the important relevant part.

Do you not agree that most anti gun rhetoric is based entirely on emotional argument?

Last edited by Tin Knocker; 06-23-2009 at 05:08 AM..

 
Old 06-23-2009, 05:06 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by ako View Post
Accusing each other of cowardice... people on this forum do NOT like to be disagreed with.

I dont mind being disagreed with. It would be nice if the people disagreeing could use rational thinking & personal experience in their arguments.
I wasn't acusing him/her of anything, merely stating my opinion.

The whole antigun argument is based on fear of an inanimate object, cowardice might be too strong a word for your sensibilities but it fits.

Heres a doctors opinion on the antigun mindset,

Quote:
Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality


By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
righter@therighter.com
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."

"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."

"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."

"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
 
Old 06-23-2009, 05:48 AM
 
Location: MS
3,949 posts, read 3,855,603 times
Reputation: 1370
Quote:
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
Tennessee just passed a law that allowed CCW holders to carry their weapon into a restaurant that happens to sell alcohol. Personal comments after each posted news story would make people think that people would be shooting the server over an undercooked burger. No one took the time to research the stats on this. The city I live is a suburb of Memphis, TN but happens to be in Mississippi. We have had the right to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol for years and no incidents. Almost everything the anti-gun group does is a knee-jerk, fear inspired reaction.

-Robert
 
Old 06-23-2009, 06:18 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
Tennessee just passed a law that allowed CCW holders to carry their weapon into a restaurant that happens to sell alcohol. Personal comments after each posted news story would make people think that people would be shooting the server over an undercooked burger. No one took the time to research the stats on this. The city I live is a suburb of Memphis, TN but happens to be in Mississippi. We have had the right to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol for years and no incidents. Almost everything the anti-gun group does is a knee-jerk, fear inspired reaction.

-Robert

Exactly. I live in CT & we can carry into restaurants & its never been an issue. A few years ago they passed a law placing the same blood alcohol limits on carrying as they do for driving. On the surface it seems wise, but unlike DWI laws it does not address a real problem. I'm sure it has & will get permits revoked, but drunken permit holders, unlike drunk drivers, have never been anything but an imaginary problem. Its pretty obvious when a group needs to look for things that MIGHT happen that there's nothing that IS happening for them to rally against.

Gun control, as a logical realistic measure to aid public saftey was acieved many decades ago. Everything in the last 20 years or so is just over restrictive repressive legislation placed on us by politicians who know how to manipulate their constituancy.
 
Old 06-23-2009, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,557,510 times
Reputation: 24548
I think much of the public was taught in school to never use physical force on any one and to expect your parents or teachers to stop or at least punish the bullies that are hurting you. These people expect to be protected and the mere thought that they would have to protect themselves in almost incomprehensible. They might actually not be able to fight back because they will not hurt anyone. As guns are specifically designed to hurt and kill, then guns are evil and must not be allowed on their, and everyone else’s, society. Thus they would ban not only owning guns but the manufacturer of guns and any other weapons.

We have seen how this does not work where most guns have actually been confiscated and destroyed. In both England and Australia the rate of violent crimes has increased as the victims cannot fight back against a gun carrying criminal. Violent criminals may not be very intellectual but they are smart enough to realize that, as criminals, the gun removal laws do not apply. What gun removal has done is make violent assault one hell of a lot safer for the criminal so the assaults have increased.

I happen to believe that the government and police, as they have made perfectly clear, do not have any responsibility for protecting a citizen from assault but have only the responsibility for finding and punishing the perpetrator. Under these circumstances everybody has to be able to protect themselves. Carrying and knowing how to use a concealed handgun gives the potential victim a much better chance of surviving the assault.

The first thing a person has to know about fighting back is that they have a decent chance of winning the fight and that they will not be held criminally responsible for defending themselves. They must also realize that they may just kill someone while defending themselves and be ready to accept the guilt for harming a person. Armed self defense is serious business and the responsibility should never be taken lightly.
 
Old 06-23-2009, 07:40 AM
 
Location: MS
3,949 posts, read 3,855,603 times
Reputation: 1370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
A few years ago they passed a law placing the same blood alcohol limits on carrying as they do for driving. On the surface it seems wise, but unlike DWI laws it does not address a real problem. I'm sure it has & will get permits revoked, but drunken permit holders, unlike drunk drivers, have never been anything but an imaginary problem. Its pretty obvious when a group needs to look for things that MIGHT happen that there's nothing that IS happening for them to rally against.
This is surprising to me. In MS, there is no drinking while carrying. None, zero, zilch, nada. In fact there is a gray area when I grab my weekly burger because I sit at the bar drinking tea.

-Robert
 
Old 06-23-2009, 08:59 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,905,899 times
Reputation: 12289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
This is surprising to me. In MS, there is no drinking while carrying. None, zero, zilch, nada. In fact there is a gray area when I grab my weekly burger because I sit at the bar drinking tea.

-Robert
NV has a law that adresses being under the influence while carrying. It encompasses CCW and all other aspects of firearms handling and use. The local public range gets checked by the SO regularly and they have nailed a few idiots out swilling beer and shooting. I don't really mind this particular law. It used to be that a bar was off limits for CCW, but that has recently been changed to allow carry in a bar so long as the armed indiviual does not imbibe. Seems fair enough. The only off limits places for CCW now are banks, casinos, government buildings and any place that has posted a no weapons allowed notice.
 
Old 06-23-2009, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,194 posts, read 17,689,444 times
Reputation: 7980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
Unsubstantiated research? I don't think so.
Woosh - the point went right over your head (or was deliberately ignored).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
GD didn't link to what he was talking about & it could have been another incident. The fact remains that people were attacked & successfully defended themselves with firearms & thats the important relevant part.
No, no, no... The relevant part is that GD said it was an elderly woman, and he was mistaken. Why can't you understand that that's what's relevant?! It completely invalidates his entire point!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
NV ... The only off limits places for CCW now are banks, casinos, government buildings and any place that has posted a no weapons allowed notice.
Actually, it's airports, schools/child care facilities, and buildings with metal detectors or signs at the entrances. Casinos and banks are A-OK (if not, then I've been breaking the law quite a bit these last couple of years! ). Specifics are in NRS 202.3673. I would think that banks especially would like to have lots of armed customers - makes things pretty difficult for the "non-customers" trying to make withdrawals...
 
Old 06-23-2009, 12:38 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,321,196 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
This is surprising to me. In MS, there is no drinking while carrying. None, zero, zilch, nada. In fact there is a gray area when I grab my weekly burger because I sit at the bar drinking tea.

-Robert

Its tough to explain but what bothers me about it is it came from nowhere & doesn't adress a real problem. In CT we arent a shall issue state. Generally you get a permit if theres nothing on your record but we have a suitability clause. If the issueing authority decides your not suitable you'll lose your permit even if theres no actual disqualifiers. Carrying while drunk would have got it pulled.
That people shouldn't drink while carrying is a given but since there was no precipitating event I view the law as grasping at straws.

The only people I'v ever observed drinking while carrying were cops anyway.
 
Old 06-23-2009, 09:46 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,193 times
Reputation: 1300
why are we arguing about the age of home invasion victims? does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? i'm gonna wager a big fat no on that one, but feel free to correct me if you think i'm overlooking something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
The only place, thus far, that you and I disagree on is the fact that I want it registered. I want a license. I want a paper trail.

Be that as it may, don't BS me. The event mentioned did not happen. A quick search reveals that the event that he claimed happened to him did not happen. BS was never necessary.

Are we clear?
i need to make sure that i'm reading you right. you don't believe that greatday was telling the truth about the arizona (if i remember right) lady that shot the home invaders?

and you don't believe that he has used deadly force in defense of his own family? and you say that a "quick search" provided your evidence of this?

had to make sure i was understanding what you were saying here...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandamonium View Post
Yep, we did this when GD opened up. I'm not going to move/your not going to move. It then becomes boring.
you're not going to agree that criminals with stolen/illegal guns aren't generally going to be traceable? explain to me then how you think the cops are going to persuade them to come in and register them? or is there another theory that you think is going to make registration succeed where everything else along those lines failed?

Quote:
Tin- post #760 cleary states an elderly woman was involved and there are no elderly victims in that account, are there? In fact, search as much as you want it, your not going to find an elderly victim in there. Therefore, it was necessary to create a fictive account of an event to prove a point. It wasn't your post. You can defend it, deny it, I don't care one way or the other. The fact of the matter is that it did not have an elderly woman in there. Talk about an attempt to use an emotional argument.
hmm, so we are arguing the age of the vic because that makes or breaks the case of home defense and the 2nd amendment? i don't live in az, didn't see the story, don't care enough to go hunt it down on the web (as you apparently did), but i have no inherent reason to be suspicious of it.

home invasions happen every day around the world. people defending themselves from invaders happens every day around the world too. do i care how old they are? nope. if great day lied about the age (or is refering to a different story, or heard a report with different ages included, or any other number of more probable explanations), does that somehow make the point any less valid?

you seem to be attacking the argument because a generally unrelated number was quoted wrong, when the rest of the argument stands with or without an old lady. just seems kind of strange to me. call me weird, but i like to see things logically.

aaron out.
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.


Closed Thread

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