Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big_Dog

Tougher Gun Laws - Yea or Nea

2,273 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

lol

Such a childish and fearmongering mindset.

People have been fighting fire with fire when it comes to violent crime since time immemorial yet it's still around. Guards and cops are armed in gun free zones yet incidents continue to happen. People who are armed are robbed and/or killed anyway. Maybe fighting fire with fire doesn't work, eh?

you are making my point. violent crime will always be around regardless of so-called solutions that disarm victims.

the events that have re-ignited the prohibition movement have all occurred in gun-free zones (schools, churches, movie theaters, outdoor concerts whereby guns are prohibited, etc). violent criminals do not seek out police stations, firearm-instructional companies nor armed military installations as targets with which to attack. 

evil exists. if pointing that out seems childish and it's reality promotes fear than conversely reality is childish and fearful. whether it is one thing or another, one thing is for certain, if you are unwilling to defend yourself, choosing to actively remove someone else's ability to do so (and thereby making them a criminal) is cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There's no real solution" doesn't really mesh with the fact that most other major countries have found a "solution". 

Makes one question exactly what one who uses that argument is trying to accomplish. 

Optimus_Cr1m35 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WOR said:

"There's no real solution" doesn't really mesh with the fact that most other major countries have found a "solution". 

Makes one question exactly what one who uses that argument is trying to accomplish. 

It also makes one question what someone is trying to accomplish by comparing the US to other countries, since there are none like it in the world. 

I also wonder why these same people cite Austrailia's gun ban as an example, but completely ignore Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WOR said:

"There's no real solution" doesn't really mesh with the fact that most other major countries have found a "solution"

Makes one question exactly what one who uses that argument is trying to accomplish. 

what fact demonstrates any country has solved violent crime?

 

Edited by Doug Carlton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Carlton said:

you are making my point. violent crime will always be around regardless of so-called solutions that disarm victims.

the events that have re-ignited the prohibition movement have all occurred in gun-free zones (schools, churches, movie theaters, outdoor concerts whereby guns are prohibited, etc). violent criminals do not seek out police stations, firearm-instructional companies nor armed military installations as targets with which to attack. 

evil exists. if pointing that out seems childish and it's reality promotes fear than conversely reality is childish and fearful. whether it is one thing or another, one thing is for certain, if you are unwilling to defend yourself, choosing to actively remove someone else's ability to do so (and thereby making them a criminal) is cowardice.

This shooting in Parkland Florida makes it abundantly clear.  The Broward County Sheriffs Department had a $835 million dollar budget in FY 2016-17.  Disarming is relying on them to protect you.  Even the best police force with the right people well trained and equipped cannot be everywhere at once.  However, in the real world, what are the odds you are going to get the best people with the best training.  Apparently, just shy of a billion dollar Sheriff's Department budget in a high population, well-to-do community, is not enough to ensure that the law enforcement authority will respond promptly and correctly. Those who want to blame law-abiding people can trust the FBI and Sheriff Scott Israel if they want, but I choose to defend myself.

 

 

Edited by Flip Flop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Flip Flop said:

This shooting in Parkland Florida makes it abundantly clear.  The Broward County Sheriffs Department had a $835 million dollar budget in FY 2016-17.  Disarming is relying on them to protect you.  Even the best police force with the right people well trained and equipped cannot be everywhere at once.  However, in the real world, what are the odds you are going to get the best people with the best training.  Apparently, just shy of a billion dollar Sheriff's Department budget in a high population, well-to-do community, is not enough to ensure that the law enforcement authority will respond promptly and correctly. Those who want to blame law-abiding people can trust the FBI and Sheriff Scott Israel if they want, but I choose to defend myself.

 

 

Exactly, I would rather put my own life in my own hands (under most circumstances) than to trust someone who may or may not have my best interest (or my families best interest) at heart.  

JDaveG and WalkingTheDawg like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Doug Carlton said:

you are making my point. violent crime will always be around regardless of so-called solutions that disarm victims.

the events that have re-ignited the prohibition movement have all occurred in gun-free zones (schools, churches, movie theaters, outdoor concerts whereby guns are prohibited, etc). violent criminals do not seek out police stations, firearm-instructional companies nor armed military installations as targets with which to attack. 

evil exists. if pointing that out seems childish and it's reality promotes fear than conversely reality is childish and fearful. whether it is one thing or another, one thing is for certain, if you are unwilling to defend yourself, choosing to actively remove someone else's ability to do so (and thereby making them a criminal) is cowardice.

Not really. Your argument is that the only solution to violent crime is to arm more people. That clearly is not the case given the situation in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

It's a trope whether you like to admit it or not.

It's not a trope when everything I said is literally true.

A trope is where I'm being figurative or using words in non-typical usage, i.e., a form of equivocation.  I'm not equivocating in the slightest.  I gave you nothing but facts and analysis of those facts.

If you want to demonstrate how anything I said is equivocal, give it a go.  But calling something a trope doesn't make it one.  It's just you avoiding the discussion by throwing out unsupported accusations.  You'll note I cited to the actual law and provided examples.  If you'd like to address those, that's your call.  If not, that's also your call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Not really. Your argument is that the only solution to violent crime is to arm more people. That clearly is not the case given the situation in this country.

I think you're missing what he said entirely.  He didn't say arming more people is a solution to violent crime. He said there isn't a solution to violent crime, because people are going to be violent.  That's human history.  He also said if you want to be protected from violent crime, that's up to you, something that should be obvious after Parkland.  "The police will protect you" is not an answer, because they can't, and when they can, too often they won't, and they're under no legal obligation to do so.

Now, one can certainly discuss whether other countries have succeeded in reducing particular types of crime by banning guns, or through other measures.  But "violent crime" as a classification is not something that is reduced by gun bans.  It simply shifts the violence to other means, and also shifts the ability to defend against it to other means.

Perhaps you enjoy hand-to-hand combat, or knife fighting, or using clubs or bats or throwing rocks.  Or perhaps you think it best to live in a country where firearms are severely restricted because at least any would-be attacker would be limited in their ability to obtain some firearms, as would you.  Those are both reasonable positions.  But it doesn't change the fact that violence is a fact of life in every country on earth, and how we address that has many different factors.

For example, Australia has never really had much of a violent crime problem.  Before their gun ban and after, they simply were not a particularly violent society.  We are.  We have historically been.  And so their solutions are not our solutions.  That doesn't mean we couldn't do what they did, only that it will not achieve the result they achieved, because our problem is different from theirs.  We have cultural issues that will not go away by simply restricting law abiding citizens from using firearms.  We also have a proliferation of guns that they never really had.  Australia's buyback resulted in 600K-700K guns being turned in.  That's about 2 percent of the total guns in this country.

WalkingTheDawg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Doozer said:

It also makes one question what someone is trying to accomplish by comparing the US to other countries, since there are none like it in the world. 

I also wonder why these same people cite Austrailia's gun ban as an example, but completely ignore Mexico.

Mexico gets their guns from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

I think you're missing what he said entirely.  He didn't say arming more people is a solution to violent crime. He said there isn't a solution to violent crime, because people are going to be violent.  That's human history.  He also said if you want to be protected from violent crime, that's up to you, something that should be obvious after Parkland.  "The police will protect you" is not an answer, because they can't, and when they can, too often they won't, and they're under no legal obligation to do so.

Now, one can certainly discuss whether other countries have succeeded in reducing particular types of crime by banning guns, or through other measures.  But "violent crime" as a classification is not something that is reduced by gun bans.  It simply shifts the violence to other means, and also shifts the ability to defend against it to other means.

Perhaps you enjoy hand-to-hand combat, or knife fighting, or using clubs or bats or throwing rocks.  Or perhaps you think it best to live in a country where firearms are severely restricted because at least any would-be attacker would be limited in their ability to obtain some firearms, as would you.  Those are both reasonable positions.  But it doesn't change the fact that violence is a fact of life in every country on earth, and how we address that has many different factors.

For example, Australia has never really had much of a violent crime problem.  Before their gun ban and after, they simply were not a particularly violent society.  We are.  We have historically been.  And so their solutions are not our solutions.  That doesn't mean we couldn't do what they did, only that it will not achieve the result they achieved, because our problem is different from theirs.  We have cultural issues that will not go away by simply restricting law abiding citizens from using firearms.  We also have a proliferation of guns that they never really had.  Australia's buyback resulted in 600K-700K guns being turned in.  That's about 2 percent of the total guns in this country.

That is not what he said. Go back and read.

His point is that all these massacres happen only in gun free zones (which is not true btw) and the only way to rectify that is to arm people in those zones, that the only way violent crime can be prevented is to, "fight back."

It's just more of the gun ****** fairy tale that the only way we can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

That is not what he said. Go back and read.

His point is that all these massacres happen only in gun free zones (which is not true btw) and the only way to rectify that is to arm people in those zones, that the only way violent crime can be prevented is to, "fight back."

It's just more of the gun ****** fairy tale that the only way we can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

You are wrong, JDaveG is correct and he said it very succinctly.

You should re-read " the events that have re-ignited the prohibition movement have all occurred in gun-free zones (schools, churches, movie theaters, outdoor concerts whereby guns are prohibited, etc). violent criminals do not seek out police stations, firearm-instructional companies nor armed military installations as targets with which to attack. " You might have missed that.

I never said violent crime can be prevented, I've said many times that  Violent crime is feasible only if its victims are disarmed and/or are cowards. A victim who fights back makes the whole business impractical. It is true that a victim who fights back may suffer for it, but one who does not almost certainly will suffer for it. And, suffer or not, the one who fights back retains their dignity and self-respect.

Psychic Gibbon - I have no aim to argue with you or intimidate you. You've sought me out several times, called me names, ridiculed me for my positions. I understand you disagree and that is fine. My underlying issue is that your opinion on the matter is benign until you give it life by suggesting that I be rendered unable (disarmed) to defend myself when you will not even defend yourself. I wish you health and long life. I desire for you to reciprocate but that is beyond my control. I also understand this may or may not be borne of a perspective you hold that was a part of your development into a mature adult. After all, we learn to be who we are as children and shaped by our environment (Wordsworth wrote that "the child is the Father of the Man") and for many of us that did not include an education in armed self-defense. To the contrary many of us were raised in fear of guns and that attitude is to be expected. In light of our disagreement I want to make an offer to train you on the safe use of a firearm as a means to defend against violent crime. I am the GM and Director of Training at a very prestigious Gun Club in the Metro area and I would donate my time for free. 

JDaveG and WhenFalconsWin like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doug Carlton said:

You are wrong, JDaveG is correct and he said it very succinctly.

You should re-read " the events that have re-ignited the prohibition movement have all occurred in gun-free zones (schools, churches, movie theaters, outdoor concerts whereby guns are prohibited, etc). violent criminals do not seek out police stations, firearm-instructional companies nor armed military installations as targets with which to attack. " You might have missed that.

I never said violent crime can be prevented, I've said many times that  Violent crime is feasible only if its victims are disarmed and/or are cowards. A victim who fights back makes the whole business impractical. It is true that a victim who fights back may suffer for it, but one who does not almost certainly will suffer for it. And, suffer or not, the one who fights back retains their dignity and self-respect.

Psychic Gibbon - I have no aim to argue with you or intimidate you. You've sought me out several times, called me names, ridiculed me for my positions. I understand you disagree and that is fine. My underlying issue is that your opinion on the matter is benign until you give it life by suggesting that I be rendered unable (disarmed) to defend myself when you will not even defend yourself. I wish you health and long life. I desire for you to reciprocate but that is beyond my control. I also understand this may or may not be borne of a perspective you hold that was a part of your development into a mature adult. After all, we learn to be who we are as children and shaped by our environment (Wordsworth wrote that "the child is the Father of the Man") and for many of us that did not include an education in armed self-defense. To the contrary many of us were raised in fear of guns and that attitude is to be expected. In light of our disagreement I want to make an offer to train you on the safe use of a firearm as a means to defend against violent crime. I am the GM and Director of Training at a very prestigious Gun Club in the Metro area and I would donate my time for free. 

The problem with your argument is that mass shooters have targeted military bases and courthouses. They have also targeted cops, though I'm not entirely about the numbers of police station shootings. I don't know of mass shootings at shooting ranges but more than a few murders and suicides have occurred in those areas.

Your argument has no real foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The problem with your argument is that mass shooters have targeted military bases and courthouses. They have also targeted cops, though I'm not entirely about the numbers of police station shootings. I don't know of mass shootings at shooting ranges but more than a few murders and suicides have occurred in those areas.

Your argument has no real foundation.

You realize military bases have most personnel unarmed, right?

We've discussed courthouses before, so I won't rehash that here.  But one of the complaints about the Ft. Hood massacre was that we had all manner of well-trained personnel there, but everyone was disarmed due to base restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

You realize military bases have most personnel unarmed, right?

We've discussed courthouses before, so I won't rehash that here.  But one of the complaints about the Ft. Hood massacre was that we had all manner of well-trained personnel there, but everyone was disarmed due to base restrictions.

It's the same protocol they follow on bases in warzones. This also attempts to ignore that that all personnel are disarmed on bases, so even then you have more than a few soldiers who are armed to deal with potential situations. It's not like shooters that target them think it's going to be a cakewalk.

That said, the premise is that shooters avoid areas that they know people with guns are. That is demonstrably false. If they feel like people who have wronged them in some way or another need to be killed then they're going to target those people regardless of the gun situation in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The problem with your argument is that mass shooters have targeted military bases and courthouses. They have also targeted cops, though I'm not entirely about the numbers of police station shootings. I don't know of mass shootings at shooting ranges but more than a few murders and suicides have occurred in those areas.

Your argument has no real foundation.

I am not arguing.

The foundation is that armed people that fight back make violent crime impractical. The attacker dies sooner. More people survive.

yea us!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Doug Carlton said:

I am not arguing.

The foundation is that armed people that fight back make violent crime impractical. The attacker dies sooner. More people survive.

yea us!

 

The "foundation" isn't based on any factual evidence. I'll concede 1 instance of an armed good guy with a gun stopping a shooter (Texas church). Other than that, good guys with guns have really been slacking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doug Carlton said:

I am not arguing.

The foundation is that armed people that fight back make violent crime impractical. The attacker dies sooner. More people survive.

yea us!

 

Doesn't seem to prevent the massacres though. From the massacres I can recall most ended because the shooter killed themselves or gave up themselves up to police when they were finished, not because a good guy with a gun killed them. As was pointed out in the other thread, the only recent exception, at least that I can think of, was Sutherland but even then the shooter was only killed after he was finished killing the people in the church. That got me thinking though...

The guards and cops at Stoneman Douglas didn't go in as the shooting was going on but instead took positions outside. They are being labeled cowards by the gun ******* crowd. The good guy with a gun at Sutherland did the same thing. He is considered an archetypal hero by the same crowd. What's the deal with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

The "foundation" isn't based on any factual evidence. I'll concede 1 instance of an armed good guy with a gun stopping a shooter (Texas church). Other than that, good guys with guns have really been slacking...

and this occurs frequently because....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

Doesn't seem to prevent the massacres though. From the massacres I can recall most ended because the shooter killed themselves or gave up themselves up to police when they were finished, not because a good guy with a gun killed them. As was pointed out in the other thread, the only recent exception was Sutherland but even then the shooter was only killed after he was finished killing the people in the church. That got me thinking though...

The guards and cops at Stoneman Douglas didn't go in as the shooting was going on but instead took positions outside. They are being labeled cowards by the gun ******* crowd. The good guy with a gun at Sutherland did the same thing. He is considered an archetypal hero by the same crowd. What's the deal with that?

Violent crime is inevitable. In every society where Man has lived, violent crime has persisted. This is not debatable. Again, there is no solution nor am I offering one. Please do not pretend we are on differing sides of that straw-man.

What you are offering as a "solution" to the problem of violent crime is to disarm victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

The "foundation" isn't based on any factual evidence. I'll concede 1 instance of an armed good guy with a gun stopping a shooter (Texas church). Other than that, good guys with guns have really been slacking...

1 instance?  Are you trying to be funny/cute or just clueless? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doug Carlton said:

Violent crime is inevitable. In every society where Man has lived, violent crime has persisted. This is not debatable. Again, there is no solution nor am I offering one. Please do not pretend we are on differing sides of that straw-man.

What you are offering as a "solution" to the problem of violent crime is to disarm victims.

Rhetoric sir...just plain rhetoric, he's offering talking points and rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0