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.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
A law abiding citizen protecting an employee after being shot is not called "shooting up" a pizzeria. Notice how you put the criminal element toward the citizen instead of the actual gunmen? I'll tell you what, if I was shot or being shot at, I would rather have a person 5 feet behind him attempt to stop the gunmen vs hoping their bullets miss my vital organs.
Like I said before, criminals are so brazen here because they know citizens won't be armed and most like you, are willing to just bend over and hope for the best. There was a crazy guy on MUNI with a knife, waving it around yelling profanity about homosexuals, nobody did anything, including the bus driver. It's the culture here to just let idiots do what they want.
Your most "vital organ" on this topic should be your brain. The answer to curtailing random gun violence isn't putting more guns in more hands. I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it isn't that.
Gun totin' cities in the South should illustrate this pretty clearly, as they tend to be very violent places. I'm not trying to draw any causal line by saying that, because I don't believe it to be the cause. But, more guns in more hands certainly hasn't seemed like the answer.
Your most "vital organ" on this topic should be your brain. The answer to curtailing random gun violence isn't putting more guns in more hands. I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it isn't that.
Gun totin' cities in the South should illustrate this pretty clearly, as they tend to be very violent places. I'm not trying to draw any causal line by saying that, because I don't believe it to be the cause. But, more guns in more hands certainly hasn't seemed like the answer.
Yes, banning guns worked wonders for Chicago! Criminals won't smuggle in guns if they are illegal right? Just like people won't buy weed if it's illegal either.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
Yes, banning guns worked wonders for Chicago! Criminals won't smuggle in guns if they are illegal right? Just like people won't buy weed if it's illegal either.
Do you deny that Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta and even medium-sized cities, where gun ownership laws are more permissive and carrying firearms is allowed, are among the worst in the country for violent crime and gun violence, or are you simply going to ignore facts that don't support your hyper-Right Wing rant?
Do you deny that Houston, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta and even medium-sized cities, where gun ownership laws are more permissive and carrying firearms is allowed, are among the worst in the country for violent crime and gun violence, or are you simply going to ignore facts that don't support your hyper-Right Wing rant?
There is no proof that shows conservative cities are more dangerous than liberal cities. In fact, many liberal cities have horrendous crime rates. If you want to look at the state level compare California to Alaska which has arguably the most relaxed gun laws. I was able to buy a handgun and a assault rifle within 10 minutes. There are a ton of people carrying guns and please don't give me an ignorant comment like, "oh well you have to protect yourself from bears while walking to your car." I never worried about being a victim of gun violence there. Of course there is still crime, but hey if you know the majority of households own guns and are allowed by the state to use them if their life is in danger, I would think twice about breaking into someone's house, that's common sense. The same thing could be said about robbing a store if you know a decent amount of people are carrying a gun.
There are cities in both demographics that have horrendous crime rates. Can you tell me Oakland has low crime? Can you tell me Compton has low crime? And btw, I consider myself more a liberal than a conservative, but I'm more in the middle, I believe either extreme is bad. Bottom line, there is no data that supports states with strict gun laws have much lower gun related crime vs states with relaxed gun laws and the same can be said about cities, small, medium or large.
I would rather have the ability to own a gun to protect my family vs praying to God my home never gets broken into while I'm home or my family is home.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
You are evading the issue again. Your assertion is that arming more people through lax gun laws makes for a safer environment. I said nothing about Liberal or Conservative cities. I didn't even say that cities with strict gun laws were safer. I don't believe any evidence suggests that. What I said was, that regions with lax gun laws were not safer (in fact, statistically, many are more violent), so that argument doesn't seem to hold up.
That's the nature of rational thought. If your hypothesis is proven wrong, you should seek a new one, rather than trying to bend the idea around why you think the opposing idea is also wrong. I never said stricter gun laws made for lower crime rates in cities. You took it upon yourself to argue against that point (which wasn't even raised).
In other words, maybe the issue isn't hanging on gun ownership. Maybe it's societal. Maybe it's socioeconomic. I don't claim to have the answer. The difference between us is, you do claim to have the answer, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to prove you right.
You are evading the issue again. Your assertion is that arming more people through lax gun laws makes for a safer environment. I said nothing about Liberal or Conservative cities. I didn't even say that cities with strict gun laws were safer. I don't believe any evidence suggests that. What I said was, that regions with lax gun laws were not safer (in fact, statistically, many are more violent), so that argument doesn't seem to hold up.
That's the nature of rational thought. If your hypothesis is proven wrong, you should seek a new one, rather than trying to bend the idea around why you think the opposing idea is also wrong. I never said stricter gun laws made for lower crime rates in cities. You took it upon yourself to argue against that point (which wasn't even raised).
In other words, maybe the issue isn't hanging on gun ownership. Maybe it's societal. Maybe it's socioeconomic. I don't claim to have the answer. The difference between us is, you do claim to have the answer, even though there isn't a shred of evidence to prove you right.
How am I evading the issue? What was proven wrong? My claim that liberal/conservative/strict gun laws/lax gun laws have mixed results where none are proven safer than the other? How did you prove me wrong on that?
For every, city with lax gun laws with gun crime, I can name cities with strict gun laws with gun crime. The point is there isn't a big difference in crime whether gun ownership is allowed or not, therefore I would rather have the option to own one and feel confident I can legally use it to protect my life and others from a criminal in a life or death situation. I know my house will be safer and that's a fact.
Common sense would tell me as well, if I know most households have a gun, I would be less likely to break-in. Although, most criminals are complete idiots which is why there isn't a strong correlation between safer cities and gun laws. The results are mixed so owning a gun really comes down to the safety around you, at least in my opinion. I'm not one that thinks guns should be given to anyone, I actually support universal background checks, mandatory weapons class etc... I know criminals will bypass that but at least law abiding citizens would be much more prepared in situations and gun safety.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,134,833 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw335xi
How am I evading the issue? What was proven wrong? My claim that liberal/conservative/strict gun laws/lax gun laws have mixed results where none are proven safer than the other? How did you prove me wrong on that?
For every, city with lax gun laws with gun crime, I can name cities with strict gun laws with gun crime. The point is there isn't a big difference in crime whether gun ownership is allowed or not, therefore I would rather have the option to own one and feel confident I can legally use it to protect my life and others from a criminal in a life or death situation. I know my house will be safer and that's a fact.
Common sense would tell me as well, if I know most households have a gun, I would be less likely to break-in. Although, most criminals are complete idiots which is why there isn't a strong correlation between safer cities and gun laws. The results are mixed so owning a gun really comes down to the safety around you, at least in my opinion. I'm not one that thinks guns should be given to anyone, I actually support universal background checks, mandatory weapons class etc... I know criminals will bypass that but at least law abiding citizens would be much more prepared in situations and gun safety.
Don't back-peddle. This conversation arose from your statement that you "hoped" private citizens at the pizzeria that was being robbed would pull out a gun and kill the robbers. This wasn't about being in your home and defending yourself. This was about vigilantism and putting innocent bystanders in danger from now, not only the criminals, but the panicked victims who are now holding loaded guns. You would feel safer in your estimation of your ability to use a gun against the criminal . I and most thinking people would rather not trust being collateral damage in your wild west fantasy.
So really? Your argument all along was that there isn't any difference in crime between states with lax versus restrictive gun laws? What was all that, "criminals think twice when they know people have guns" talk?
If you're going to trot out a belief and defend it, you should know why it's a belief of yours. In each instance where I challenged you, you changed subtle pieces of your argument in an attempt to lessen the absurdity of your original statement.
So, it started with some rant about people looting stores and supporting criminals. Then, when that line didn't land, it changed from a vigilante argument into a second amendment discussion (betcha don't even know my stance on this--hint: I never declared, nor even challenged you when you diverted the conversation away from being a vigilante and firing guns in public to protecting one's home). When I showed you that your theory that concealed carry policies deter crime was wrong, you said that what you really meant was that since they didn't make a difference one way or another, you'd rather have a gun and leave everyone else at the Little Caesars to leave their lives and their families lives in your hands, trusting that you know what you're doing. You even attempted to retreat to Liberal versus Conservative (from way out in left field), hoping the conversation would turn to better be moved by parroting wingnut talking points, as is your debate style.
Sorry, you have to do better than that if you're truly interested in intelligent conversation on a topic. I'll put it in car-guy language for you: You need to at least be able to keep it between the lines better than you have in this conversation if you honestly want some intelligent discourse on the matter. You don't want that though, do you?
We are going in circles Dal, you continue to ignore the actual issue by touting passive aggressive responses that makes having an actual discussion impossible. You have confirmed my belief why crime in the Bay Area is so brazen. Why people have no fear to torment locals. Why people have no problem openly saying I'm looking to break into this car. Why people are comfortable taking a dump in the sidewalk with people around them. I get it, a criminal to you is someone that uses any type of force, whether the person is using force to rob someone vs protect someone it's all the same to you. Continue living in ignorance Dal
We are going in circles Dal, you continue to ignore the actual issue by touting passive aggressive responses that makes having an actual discussion impossible. You have confirmed my belief why crime in the Bay Area is so brazen. Why people have no fear to torment locals. Why people have no problem openly saying I'm looking to break into this car. Why people are comfortable taking a dump in the sidewalk with people around them. I get it, a criminal to you is someone that uses any type of force, whether the person is using force to rob someone vs protect someone it's all the same to you. Continue living in ignorance Dal
So..what you are saying is that if a bunch of yahoos strap on their guns and strut around like cowboys criminals will be so terrified that they will find another place to commit crimes or change their ways? haha, what will actually happen is that a good number of the self proclaimed militia will end up harming an innocent bystander or they will end up dead or injured. Cops only hit their intended target 1/3 of the time- do you really think you are going to do better? Guns aren't toys and life isn't a TV show. And if you think you can shoot someone who is breaking into a car, you had better get ready to spend a good long time in prison there is no law in California that allows you to shoot someone while defending your car stereo.
So..what you are saying is that if a bunch of yahoos strap on their guns and strut around like cowboys criminals will be so terrified that they will find another place to commit crimes or change their ways? haha, what will actually happen is that a good number of the self proclaimed militia will end up harming an innocent bystander or they will end up dead or injured. Cops only hit their intended target 1/3 of the time- do you really think you are going to do better? Guns aren't toys and life isn't a TV show. And if you think you can shoot someone who is breaking into a car, you had better get ready to spend a good long time in prison there is no law in California that allows you to shoot someone while defending your car stereo.
Are you seriously asking whether or not it's okay to use a lethal force on someone breaking into a car? I'm actually curious to know whether you are being serious or just trying to create controversy. Since when did breaking into a parked car become a life or death situation?
And talks about militia... wow, I don't think you realize the majority of the country supports the second amendment, yet I don't see rouge militias killing innocent people on the news. What is it with you guys and being all or nothing, there is a middle ground where sensible people are... geez lol.
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.
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.
