[QUOTE=Paxton;49319296]It should be at 0, but that is not reality, reality is is that evil will look for any gap they can to squeeze in there. You will never, ever EVER get it to 0, it's all on emotions and not your head. I hear parents crying from their dead child. I hear you, now lets try to reduce it since it will never be 0. Take down that big ugly as shit sign that says "COME ON IN AND SHOOT THESE KIDS!" (Gun free zone sign) and start arming some teachers to stop the threat. On the best scenario only the nut job is dead. On the worst case, a lot of kids and teachers are dead before a teacher or an Officer put the threat down.[/QUOTE]
Yea, and that's what I'm explaining as what the difference is. It's not an emotional argument, it's a difference in priorities. Australians want deaths to be as low as possible, so they're willing to restrict people's liberties (to an extent) to do so whether or not it works (since it usually isn't that easy to work out if it works or not), simply because it [i]might[/i] work. Americans hold their liberties first and do not want to lose any of them for the possibility of reducing harm other people take, and some people will go even further than that (as you can see on this page, and I don't think it's an uncommon opinion) and put their right to own stuff ahead of other people's lives.
Just to illustrate this point further, if you brought up the topic of reducing gun registration in Australia it's likely that even the most conservative person in the room would yell at you like Rusty does. The implication would be that even if the decrease in deaths in Australia over the last 20 years was due to socioeconomic changes and it happening around the same time as gun legislation being brought in is just a coincidence, most people would argue that [i]it's better to be safe than sorry[/i] and restrict access to things that could lead to injury or death. On the other hand, if you suggest increasing gun legislation in America, at least a very large number of people would yell at you for threatening to remove their freedoms and liberties because of the possibility of reducing deaths, and that [i]it's better to be safe than sorry[/i] and not remove people's liberties just for the off-chance that it might result in less deaths.
There's nothing particularly wrong or illogical about either position. You could, for example, argue that if a person didn't want to be killed they shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place. Many people believe that criminals should be killed by execution anyway. It's just not an idea that I can personally get behind.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319318]
It's a pretty ignorant assumption to make that 0 is an impossible target to achieve. Even in the US. We definitely can't go to 0 in a short period of time, it takes a long time to change things. Even if it was impossible its still something that we should aim for.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we can waste all the time in the world to shoot for 0. But to get it to 0 is that every person in the world would have to obey every law, and that will never ever happen because criminals do not care about laws. It's pointless you need to start doing things to defend yourself, your community, your state and your country, not have a Government pass more laws that more criminals are never going to listen to.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319363]Yea, and that's what I'm explaining as what the difference is. It's not an emotional argument, it's a difference in priorities. Australians want deaths to be as low as possible, so they're willing to restrict people's liberties (to an extent) to do so whether or not it works (since it usually isn't that easy to work out if it works or not), simply because it [I]might[/I] work. Americans hold their liberties first and do not want to lose any of them for the possibility of reducing harm other people take, and some people will go even further than that (as you can see on this page, and I don't think it's an uncommon opinion) and put their right to own stuff ahead of other people's lives.
There's nothing particularly wrong or illogical about either position. You could, for example, argue that if a person didn't want to be killed they shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place. Many people believe that criminals should be killed by execution anyway. It's just not an idea that I can personally get behind.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the criminal. If you've killed 3 people and raped 10 women you're damn right I want you dead. If you've been in and out of prison for rape for the past 30 years, yeah go with life without parole.
Now, I understand at a time you did have them [guns], nutjob went loose and now there's a ban. When that happened home invasions and rapes went up. Now they've lowered back down because after years of fighting back and jail scentences and the whole thing now is how can we reduce this further? Some people say they want the guns back, the government says that will never be an option for now. You can try rehabilitating, but that works on a small amount. You can keep sending people to jail for life or killing the bad ones. But even after you do all of this and teach people to not do it, evil will find someone and it will always happen, that is why it will never be 0.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319363]Many people believe that criminals should be killed by execution anyway.[/QUOTE]
tbh, that's not really comparable. One is during the act, of which they are an active threat to someone, and the other they have already been apprehended and are not a threat to anyone.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319363]Yea, and that's what I'm explaining as what the difference is. It's not an emotional argument, it's a difference in priorities. Australians want deaths to be as low as possible, so they're willing to restrict people's liberties (to an extent) to do so whether or not it works (since it usually isn't that easy to work out if it works or not), simply because it [i]might[/i] work. Americans hold their liberties first and do not want to lose any of them for the possibility of reducing harm other people take, and some people will go even further than that (as you can see on this page, and I don't think it's an uncommon opinion) and put their right to own stuff ahead of other people's lives.
There's nothing particularly wrong or illogical about either position. You could, for example, argue that if a person didn't want to be killed they shouldn't be breaking into your house in the first place. Many people believe that criminals should be killed by execution anyway. It's just not an idea that I can personally get behind.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you really understand how guns are used.
In the vast, vast, [I]vast[/I] majority of instances, when guns are used for self defense, no one dies. Usually if you pull a gun on a mugger, or a home invader, they're going to leg it. Because, as has been made clear already, most muggers and robbers aren't murderers. And most people don't shoot criminals in the back as they're running away. That's usually where things end.
Now, if someone keeps advancing on you even when they know they've got a gun pointed at them, I think it's safe to assume that's the sort of person you don't want to be at the mercy of.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49319392]Yeah, we can waste all the time in the world to shoot for 0. But to get it to 0 is that every person in the world would have to obey every law, and that will never ever happen because criminals do not care about laws. It's pointless you need to start doing things to defend yourself, your community, your state and your country, not have a Government pass more laws that more criminals are never going to listen to.[/QUOTE]
It's not so much getting it to 0 exactly but instead reducing it as much as possible.
To make it really simple, One side is more paranoid about guns than they are about criminals and the other is more paranoid about criminals than they are about guns.
Whether or not the paranoia is justified is going to depend on a number of different factors (many of which are not totally acquirable), all I'm arguing here is that it the basis of the argument of each side.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319442]I don't think you really understand how guns are used.
In the vast, vast, [I]vast[/I] majority of instances, when guns are used for self defense, no one dies. Usually if you pull a gun on a mugger, or a home invader, they're going to leg it. Because, as has been made clear already, most muggers and robbers aren't murderers. And most people don't shoot criminals in the back as they're running away. That's usually where things end.
Now, if someone keeps advancing on you even when they know they've got a gun pointed at them, I think it's safe to assume that's the sort of person you don't want to be at the mercy of.[/QUOTE]
But there's a possibility of somebody dieing, which is enough to make a social liberal like me uncomfortable.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49319392]Yeah, we can waste all the time in the world to shoot for 0. But to get it to 0 is that every person in the world would have to obey every law, and that will never ever happen because criminals do not care about laws. It's pointless you need to start doing things to defend yourself, your community, your state and your country, not have a Government pass more laws that more criminals are never going to listen to.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but fear mongering is not helping, there will always be people out there who want to hurt you, but scaring everyone into buying guns for protection is not a solution. [URL="http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf"]Guns are rarely used for self-defence[/URL]. If what some of you say is true, that brandishing a gun is all you need to do, then buy a replica for self-defence, that way it can't be turned against you. I mean sure break-ins happen, but its not a US phenomenon, it happens everywhere and people are still able to defend themselves without using guns.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49319401]tbh, that's not really comparable. One is during the act, of which they are an active threat to someone, and the other they have already been apprehended and are not a threat to anyone.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I was just trying to illustrate that there's a difference in views in the different countries. Executing people for being criminals would be one extreme and the other would be, I don't know, totalitarianism? Pretty much the same thing per the horse shoe theory I guess.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319474] If what some of you say is true, that brandishing a gun is all you need to do, then buy a replica for self-defence, that way it can't be turned against you. I mean sure break-ins happen, but its not a US phenomenon, it happens everywhere and people are still able to defend themselves without using guns.[/QUOTE]
This is probably a good idea. We do something similar to this in Australia in the form of fake cameras mixed in with the real ones to deter criminals, it works quite well. Arm everyone with fake guns, including those who wouldn't be able to afford them normally. It works as self-defense, everybody gets to keep the gun that they have because and doesn't piss off anybody, it's a win-win.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49319237]
This is very true. Fast and furious is a perfect example of this. However a lot of these immigrants from Mexico are bringing these weapons back into the U.S. and committing crimes with said weapons. It's not a lot, but it's enough to make me say we need stricter immigration control laws and much stronger screening before we need any more gun laws. Then I look at both the Right and Left and go "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!" because neither one of them ever accepts responsibility for their own actions, its is both their faults that the cartels are being armed in Mexico.[/QUOTE]
So it's okay for them to have easy access to illegal American guns as long as they're only being used to shoot people in Mexico?
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319474]If what some of you say is true, that brandishing a gun is all you need to do, then buy a replica for self-defence, that way it can't be turned against you. [/QUOTE]
No branishing is NEVER what you do. This will get you thrown in prison for public panic, and if it's a mugging the mugger with the knife is going to know it's a fake and you can kiss your ass goodbye. Too many people do this already and are dead because they thought it was a good idea.
I'm going to repost what I posted before: "My Conceal Carry instructor could not stress enough that the gun is never the first option. I'm going to quote him. "Please, do not ever draw it because you're mad or it's something minor. Always always ALWAYS remember, the taking of a human life is one of the worst, if not the worst thing, you can do in your life. Criminals do not value life, we do, and you need to be sure that if you squeeze that trigger that it was your absolute last option, and you must be sure you are able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to a court that you had no choice."
I would never draw my firearm unless it was absolutely the last option. The best things to do are:
- Remove yourself from the situation
- If unable to, call 911
- If it escalates then you go to your hands, your knife, your pepper spray, your dick, anything but your gun unless it is going to end with you in the morgue to which at that point I will make the choice to defend my life or a victims life."
[QUOTE=squids_eye;49319478]So it's okay for them to have easy access to illegal American guns as long as they're only being used to shoot people in Mexico?[/QUOTE]
No there needs to be what I've been fighting for and will continue to fight for my whole life. Responsible government! Example being, one that doesn't arm the caretls or ship them over there.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319474]Yes, but fear mongering is not helping, there will always be people out there who want to hurt you, but scaring everyone into buying guns for protection is not a solution. [URL="http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf"]Guns are rarely used for self-defence[/URL]. If what some of you say is true, that brandishing a gun is all you need to do, then buy a replica for self-defence, that way it can't be turned against you. I mean sure break-ins happen, but its not a US phenomenon, it happens everywhere and people are still able to defend themselves without using guns.[/QUOTE]
all that would do is make criminals more likely to not care about having a gun pointed at them, which would be bad news both for people with real firearms and fake ones
[QUOTE=Paxton;49319511]No banishing is NEVER what you do. This will get you thrown in prison for public panic, and if it's a mugging the mugger with the knife is going to know it's a fake and you can kiss your ass goodbye. I'm going to repost what I posted before: "My Conceal Carry instructor could not stress enough that the gun is never the first option. I'm going to quote him. "Please, do not ever draw it because you're mad or it's something minor. Always always ALWAYS remember, the taking of a human life is one of the worst, if not the worst thing, you can do in your life. Criminals do not value life, we do, and you need to be sure that if you squeeze that trigger that it was your absolute last option, and you must be sure you are able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to a court that you had no choice."
I would never draw my firearm unless it was absolutely the last option. The best things to do are:
- Remove yourself from the situation
- If unable to, call 911
- If it escalates then you go to your hands, your knife, your pepper spray, your dick, anything but your gun unless it is going to end with you in the morgue to which at that point I will make the choice to defend my life or a victims life."[/QUOTE]
If a mugger is threatening you with a knife, it doesn't matter whether your concealed gun is a replica or not. They can run the distance it takes to stab you in the time it takes you to draw a gun. If everybody had fake guns that they could reveal on their person (you wouldn't need a license because it's not a real gun), it might deter attackers who wouldn't know if you had a concealed weapon and wouldn't affect them if you did.
[QUOTE=Paxton;49319511]No banishing is NEVER what you do. This will get you thrown in prison for public panic, and if it's a mugging the mugger with the knife is going to know it's a fake and you can kiss your ass goodbye. Too many people do this already and are dead because they thought it was a good idea.
I'm going to repost what I posted before: "My Conceal Carry instructor could not stress enough that the gun is never the first option. I'm going to quote him. "Please, do not ever draw it because you're mad or it's something minor. Always always ALWAYS remember, the taking of a human life is one of the worst, if not the worst thing, you can do in your life. Criminals do not value life, we do, and you need to be sure that if you squeeze that trigger that it was your absolute last option, and you must be sure you are able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to a court that you had no choice."
I would never draw my firearm unless it was absolutely the last option. The best things to do are:
- Remove yourself from the situation
- If unable to, call 911
- If it escalates then you go to your hands, your knife, your pepper spray, your dick, anything but your gun unless it is going to end with you in the morgue to which at that point I will make the choice to defend my life or a victims life."[/QUOTE]
I wasn't referring to knife muggings I was talking about home defence against robbers. Obviously its foolish to point a fake gun at a man with a knife or gun.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319527]all that would do is make criminals more likely to not care about having a gun pointed at them, which would be bad news both for people with real firearms and fake ones[/QUOTE]
No it wouldn't. I doubt most people are stupid enough to gamble with their lives.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319527]all that would do is make criminals more likely to not care about having a gun pointed at them, which would be bad news both for people with real firearms and fake ones[/QUOTE]
But they wouldn't know whether the gun was real or not, why would they take the risk unless they were a crazy person who didn't care and would attack you no matter what?
Seriously it's a win-win for everybody. Everyone will be more safe and feel more safe, people who open-carry won't be getting the stinky eye from everybody because they'll actually be doing a public service and people like me and rusty won't care because the guns being used aren't real.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319533]If a mugger is threatening you with a knife, it doesn't matter whether your concealed gun is a replica or not. They can run the distance it takes to stab you in the time it takes you to draw a gun. If everybody had fake guns that they could reveal on their person (you wouldn't need a license because it's not a real gun), it might deter attackers who wouldn't know if you had a concealed weapon and wouldn't affect them if you did.[/QUOTE]
again, the majority of muggers aren't hardened killers
if you point a gun at them, they aren't going to charge you like a trained assassin
and if they [I]do[/I], I'd rather have a 50-50 shot at shooting them before they disembowel me than submit myself to their murderous whim
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319537]I wasn't referring to knife muggings I was talking about home defence against robbers. Obviously its foolish to point a fake gun at a man with a knife or gun.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
No it wouldn't. I doubt most people are stupid enough to gamble with their lives.[/QUOTE]
Because you know, that person who just broke into your home let's just assume he's not hopped up on drugs. Let's assume he's not powerful and can beat you to death with one hand. Let's assume he's just here to steal my stuff. This WILL get you killed, and the second they step foot in my house I will give them an offering of 10 rounds of .45 hollow point Hydra-Shock (That's actually over kill it would most likely be 7 rounds of .380 hollow points) because my state's law says that you can not do it outside your house or on your property but the second that foot hits the floor, that's it, you can kill them.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319558]But they wouldn't know whether the gun was real or not, why would they take the risk unless they were a crazy person who didn't care and would attack you no matter what?[/QUOTE]
It might work as long as the vast majority of guns are real, but the more fake ones you introduce the less of a deterrent the sight of a gun will be.
It definitely isn't a trend you'd want to catch on.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319564]again, the majority of muggers aren't hardened killers
if you point a gun at them, they aren't going to charge you like a trained assassin
and if they [I]do[/I], I'd rather have a 50-50 shot at shooting them before they disembowel me than submit myself to their murderous whim[/QUOTE]
I don't think you need to be a trained assassin to run at somebody, seriously it takes like 2 minutes for a regular young person to run 20 metres or something according to the tests, the actual distance between you and an attacker would be much less than that. If you had a holster instead of a concealed weapon you might actually have a chance (since with the fake gun idea, you'd be able to open-carry), otherwise they'd shank you while you're still messing with your pants.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;49310166]the bataclan shooters brought select fire rifles and grenades into PARIS
the only gun control is repealing the second amendment, but no one wants to roll the rock up that hill[/QUOTE]
Honestly even that won't fix it. Mexico has no 2nd amendment, and look at all the bloodshed there.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319558]Seriously it's a win-win for everybody. Everyone will be more safe and feel more safe, people who open-carry won't be getting the stinky eye from everybody because they'll actually be doing a public service and people like me and rusty won't care because the guns being used aren't real.[/QUOTE]
but if you know the guns aren't real, then so do the people they're meant to deter
it would only work if you didn't feel more safe. In best case scenario it should make you more uncomfortable since it should seem like there are even more people with guns around you.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319582]It might work as long as the vast majority of guns are real, but the more fake ones you introduce the less of a deterrent the sight of a gun will be.
It definitely isn't a trend you'd want to catch on.[/QUOTE]
Well it's a good thing that I'm not suggesting taking anybody's guns away. The people who have the guns would still have the guns, everybody else would have the replicas. You'd still be able to shoot the person running at you except you'd have a holster and therefore a much better chance to actually draw quickly enough to shoot the person before they get to you.
I mean, people are so adamant about keeping their guns. Why would that change at all suddenly when people get replica guns?
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319599]I don't think you need to be a trained assassin to run at somebody, seriously it takes like 2 minutes for a regular young person to run 20 metres or something according to the tests, the actual distance between you and an attacker would be much less than that. If you had a holster instead of a concealed weapon you might actually have a chance (since with the fake gun idea, you'd be able to open-carry), otherwise they'd shank you while you're still messing with your pants.[/QUOTE]
what is the main motivation of a mugger
is it killing you, or grabbing your smart phone
tell me, what's more likely, that they run off when met with resistance in the hopes of later finding an easier target, or they risk their lives for whatever random crap you happen to have on your person at the time
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319609]but if you know the guns aren't real, then so do the people they're meant to deter
it would only work if you didn't feel more safe. In best case scenario it should make you more uncomfortable since it should seem like there are even more people with guns around you.[/QUOTE]
How would they know the guns aren't real if they're indistinguishable from real guns? I thought you said most criminals aren't trained assassins? If regular people can't tell them apart, how would the average criminal?
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319617]Well it's a good thing that I'm not suggesting taking anybody's guns away. The people who have the guns would still have the guns, everybody else would have the replicas. You'd still be able to shoot the person running at you except you'd have a holster and therefore a much better chance to actually draw quickly enough to shoot the person before they get to you.
I mean, people are so adamant about keeping their guns. Why would that change at all suddenly when people get replica guns?[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying it would. I'm just saying that the main utility of guns in matters of self defense is their use as a deterrent, and the more fake guns you introduce the less powerful that deterrent is.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319630]How would they know the guns aren't real if they're indistinguishable from real guns? I thought you said most criminals aren't trained assassins? If regular people can't tell them apart, how would the average criminal?[/QUOTE]
If 50 percent of guns are fake, people are less likely to care about the presence of guns. That's just how risk/reward calculations work.
"I know that this person can kill me" is a lot more powerful deterrent than "this person might be able to kill me".
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319625]what is the main motivation of a mugger
is it killing you, or grabbing your smart phone
tell me, what's more likely, that they run off when met with resistance in the hopes of later finding an easier target, or they risk their lives for whatever random crap you happen to have on your person at the time[/QUOTE]
But if you have a concealed gun, they don't know that you have one ahead of time. If they see you reaching for a gun or you say "I have a gun" they have no idea whether your going to shoot them or not in the next few moment so they run towards you. If what you say is true, then people wouldn't be getting constantly shot by police for not stopping the moment the policeman tells them to. People act irrationally when put under stress.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319617]Why would that change at all suddenly when people get replica guns?[/QUOTE]
Because criminals are going to stock up on real ones why you're stuck with the fake ones. It would literally be the scene from Snatch. While your standing there screaming telling him to fuck off he's going to go "And the fact that you've got 'Replica' written down the side of your gun. And I've got 'Desert Eagle. Point Five O." Then he's going to shoot you.
I know someone who got mugged. Guess what? He didn't draw a gun on the mugger, he gave the mugger his wallet, lost $100 and kept his life. Drawing a gun on a mugger is a sure fire way to get stabbed.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319646]But if you have a concealed gun, they don't know that you have one ahead of time. If they see you reaching for a gun or you say "I have a gun" they have no idea whether your going to shoot them or not in the next few moment so they run towards you. If what you say is true, then people wouldn't be getting constantly shot by police for not stopping the moment the policeman tells them to. People act irrationally when put under stress.[/QUOTE]
The fact is that guns are used defensively all the time. We already have the statistics to support that, and they've been posted multiple times.
We don't need to muse over what might hypothetically happen when guns are used for self defense, we already know.
[QUOTE=Leon;49316507]if they make it so you need an ID and have to be 18+ to purchase knives, the violence will surely end
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
we should also ban assault blades
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
and search anyone thats wearing ASSAULT CLOTHES in public
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
because lets be real, who the fuck needs to wear cargo pants?? you don't need all those pockets, you're only carrying your phone and wallet!
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
man and camouflage??? only police and military should be wearing camouflage!![/QUOTE]
Rape epidemic? Time to ban penises!
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319631]I
If 50 percent of guns are fake, people are less likely to care about the presence of guns. That's just how risk/reward calculations work.
"I know that this person can kill me" is a lot more powerful deterrent than "this person might be able to kill me".[/QUOTE]
Considering the effectiveness of home alarms when it comes to deterring burglars, I think most criminals are more likely to only attack when there's no risk at all.
Cut 'em off boys, you don't need them to pee
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
