[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319651]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]
You're asserting something that directly contradicts the presented evidence. If you can support that assertion with facts, then please, go ahead. But pardon me if I don't take your hypothetical scenario seriously until you do.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319631]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.[/QUOTE]
(not directed at you, bouncing off of what you're saying) a gun is not equatable to a camera. You can not tell if a camera is fake without actually handling it, and I doubt most people would be able to go and handle a security camera on the ceiling that may or may not be fake.
Using a fake gun during a home invasion is literally a recipie for disaster. Much of the time, as Mr. Scorpio has been saying, that they're used entirely as a deterrent and luckily no one has to die, and the homeowner is able to protect his property.
Yet what about the cases where the intruder does not leave at the sight of you brandishing your fake weapon? You're fucked. You're now holding a fake piece of junk that's not going to protect you from that maniac.
Again, I'll reiterate my post from earlier.
[QUOTE=bdd458;49312744]You do NOT assume anyone breaking into your home has good intentions, EVER. They have violated the threshold of your property, broken laws to get in, and you DO NOT know what they are going to do. They could be just trying to steal something, or they could be there to rape and murder your family. Hell, it could start off as a robbery and end up turning into a rape and murder. You legitimately don't ever know, and I'm not one to put trust into someone actively committing a crime.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders[/url]
This happened in my god damn home state. Two theives, who were planning on robbing from a fairly well off family, ended up murdering and raping most of the family. While I doubt any guns would have changed the situation (the father was asleep on the porch, and I doubt at the speed that the criminals both worked that they would have been able to be fought off by the wife and kids). However, this is an example of thieves deciding they want more on the fly. This robbery wasn't even planned for all that long, [I]it was planned that day[/I].
After not being satiated with what they had already taken, they started raping the children and wife, and then brutally murdered them.
With what started off as a [I]robbery[/I].
[B]You don't ever assume that someone breaking into your home does not want to kill you[/B], [I]ever[/I]. If you do, you'll end up dead or maimed.
It legitimately baffles my mind that there are individuals who are so trustworthy of people who break into their home, that they'll never do you any harm. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, WHY WOULD YOU PUT THAT SORT OF TRUST INTO SOMEONE WHO'S ALREADY TAKEN THE EFFORT TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOUSE. It's just completely mind boggling.[/QUOTE]
I use that case as an example because you do not trust your life, your home in the hands of a stranger who just broke in - ever because you don't know what they are going to do
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319660]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]
Then it's the choice between doing something that might not work and not having the possibility of stopping the small number of deaths that do happen. Again, it's a difference in priorities as I explained earlier. The idea would be stopping muggings and the like from happening in the first place, not stopping them when they do happen (which wouldn't change from what's going on now). The people who have guns for self defense now would still have guns for self defense, the replica guns just give an option for people who feel like they need protection but don't want to go the whole way and buy a gun because they either can't afford it, don't want to get a carrying license or it doesn't stand with their moral principles
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319662]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.[/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't work. Just that the more wide spread the practice becomes, the bigger the drawback for everyone involved. That's all.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49319661]Rape epidemic? Time to ban penises![/QUOTE]
Cancer killed 600,000 Americans last year, BAN CANCER!
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319676]Then it's the choice between doing something that might not work and not having the possibility of stopping the small number of deaths that do happen. Again, it's a difference in priorities as I explained earlier.[/QUOTE]
Except, again, we know how the majority of these situations turn out.
There are 11,000 non-suicide related gun deaths every year. Guns are used in self defense situations 2.5 [I]million[/I] times per year.
I don't know about you, but that math seems to tell me that guns do more good than ill. Perhaps my interpretation is flawed.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319671]You're asserting something that directly contradicts the presented evidence. If you can support that assertion with facts, then please, go ahead. But pardon me if I don't take your hypothetical scenario seriously until you do.[/QUOTE]
How dare you call the mugging of someone I know, a hypothetical scenario. Fuck you.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319699]How dare you call the mugging of someone I know, a hypothetical scenario. Fuck you.[/QUOTE]
dude what are you even talking about
that wasn't what I meant at all
I'm talking about the "draw a gun, get gutted by the mugger" scenario
chillax brohame
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319692]Except, again, we know how the majority of these situations turn out.
There are 11,000 non-suicide related gun deaths every year. Guns are used in self defense situations 2.5 [I]million[/I] times per year.
I don't know about you, but that math seems to tell me that guns do more good than ill. Perhaps my interpretation is flawed.[/QUOTE]
And what if we could reduce that 11,000 to 10,000, what about 8,000, 5,000, etc? You get the point anyway so I'm not going to go on about this.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319651]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]
That's usually the case, now what are you going to do when he kidnaps you and you have that moment you need to blow his ass away? What are you going to do if he decides to start heading at you? There are classes you can take from Police Officers that by the time you've trained you can draw and have two rounds in a mugger before they close any more distance. There's even more classes that teach you to disarm them and you don't even have to give anything, except a broken arm to the mugger.
To add some humor. If you're really quick you can do this, no I don't know what it's from:
[video=youtube;SFaLokC9hqk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaLokC9hqk[/video]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319707]dude what are you even talking about
that wasn't what I meant at all
I'm talking about the "draw a gun, get gutted by the mugger" scenario
chillax brohame[/QUOTE]
Sorry, if I misunderstood. Well its kind of common sense isn't it. If someone is holding you at knife point and is clearly after your money and you reach for a gun. Their first reaction is clearly going to be stabbing you.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319712]And what if we could reduce that 11,000 to 10,000, what about 8,000, 5,000, etc? You get the point anyway so I'm not going to go on about this.[/QUOTE]
if even a percent of a percent of the number of situations in which guns were used defensively would have ended with someone being killed, then guns save more people than they kill overall
Like, I'm not super pro gun, this is just what the numbers seem to be telling me. Maybe I'm completely wrong.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319727]Sorry, if I misunderstood. Well its kind of common sense isn't it. If someone is holding you at knife point and is clearly after your money and you reach for a gun. Their first reaction is clearly going to be stabbing you.[/QUOTE]
If it's such common sense then surely it'd be easy to prove with well sourced statistics
if it isn't easy to prove with well sourced statistics then maybe your understanding isn't as well founded and "common sense" as you think it is
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319712]You had a friend that was stabbed by a mugger? I'm very sorry, I didn't know.[/QUOTE]
He didn't get stabbed. My 90 year old grandfather was also confronted by a man with a gun who was after money. My grandfather had no money, so the guy pushed him over and ran.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319729]if even a percent of a percent of the number of situations in which guns were used defensively would have ended with someone being killed, then guns save more people than they kill overall
Like, I'm not super pro gun, this is just what the numbers seem to be telling me. Maybe I'm completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
The best thing to do is to avoid the mugging taking place entirely, which would cause the number to go down even more. Like I explained in a previous post, there's a difference between stopping a mugging that is currently happening and stopping muggings from happening, which is the purpose of the proposal of giving people replica guns.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319758]He didn't get stabbed. My 90 year old grandfather was also confronted by a man with a gun who was after money. My grandfather had no money, so the guy pushed him over and ran.[/QUOTE]
Oh, okay thanks for clarifying.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319729]If it's such common sense then surely it'd be easy to prove with well sourced statistics
if it isn't easy to prove with well sourced statistics then maybe your understanding isn't as well founded and "common sense" as you think it is[/QUOTE]
I don't know if there is any stats on this. But I don't think you will outdraw someone with a gun already aimed at you. Or someone who is holding a knife inches away from you.
Whatever, there is clearly no convincing you people of any viewpoint other than your own.
Of course you would think my argument is retarded when all you guys do is sit in conservative echo chambers like /k/ all day blocking out any opinion.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319824]I don't know if there is any stats on this. But I don't think you will outdraw someone with a gun already aimed at you. Or someone who is holding a knife inches away from you.[/QUOTE]
Not unless you're Max Payne or William Shatner apparently.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319833]Not unless you're Max Payne or William Shatner apparently.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I think the problem here is that guns are making you all feel safe and invincible.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49319829]Whatever, there is clearly no convincing you people of any viewpoint other than your own.
Of course you would think my argument is retarded when all you guys do is sit in conservative echo chambers like /k/ all day blocking out any opinion.[/QUOTE]
Do be fair, I've been indoctrinated by TAC road safety advertisements my entire life advocating the idea that the number of fatalities for anything should be 0, the image of someone holding a gun in my brain is immediately followed by the image of somebody drowning a box of puppies and then an image a nuclear bomb going off.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319804]The best thing to do is to avoid the mugging taking place entirely, which would cause the number to go down even more. Like I explained in a previous post, there's a difference between stopping a mugging that is happening and stopping mugging from happening, which is the purpose of the proposal of giving people replica guns.[/QUOTE]
Maybe. Though honestly I think that's a little outside the scope of the discussion.
I think that everyone has the same basic desire here. No one wants there to be more deaths. But I think that the desire to achieve that goal has driven people to call for certain sacrifices that don't actually do anything to help people overall.
I believe the ultimate goal should be to help as many people as possible. And as long as there is a problem with poverty and gang violence in this country, there will be a need for self defense. I think that getting rid of the means of self defense before getting rid of the need for it would be a net loss.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49319850]Yeah, I think the problem here is that guns are making you all feel safe and invincible.[/QUOTE]
It certainly seems that way for at least a few people, I just wonder if replica weapons could have a facillime of the same effect
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49319829]Whatever, there is clearly no convincing you people of any viewpoint other than your own.
Of course you would think my argument is retarded when all you guys do is sit in conservative echo chambers like /k/ all day blocking out any opinion.[/QUOTE]
you know I have literally never been on /k/, even though I'm really interested in guns from an engineering and design standpoint
I've never owned a gun, I've never even held a gun, I'm going entirely by what the information that's available to me says
[QUOTE=Rusty100;49305684]target shooting is a pretty bizarre 'sport'. i think you should find another hobby that doesn't involve weapons created to kill people with the most efficiency.[/QUOTE]
i couldn't agree more
it's like letting anyone buy anthrax just because there are chemistry hobbyists.
the fact that target shooting is an olympic sport is p dumb too, it's not really a physical feat to shoot targets compared to other olympic sports, and also doesn't stem from killing.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;49319857]Maybe. Though honestly I think that's a little outside the scope of the discussion.
I think that everyone has the same basic desire here. No one wants there to be more deaths. But I think that the desire to achieve that goal has driven people to call for certain sacrifices that don't actually do anything to help people overall.
I believe the ultimate goal should be to help as many people as possible. And as long as there is a problem with poverty and gang violence in this country, there will be a need for self defense. I think that getting rid of the means of self defense before getting rid of the need for it would be a net loss.[/QUOTE]
I think the sacrifices made in Australia, UK and Europe made sense in reducing fatalities in the country they were in, I don't think the same policies would necessarily work in the US, although something similar but less extreme might reduce the number of people who commit suicide by gun or die from accidents, which seems to be the majority of the deaths caused by guns.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49319829]Whatever, there is clearly no convincing you people of any viewpoint other than your own.
Of course you would think my argument is retarded when all you guys do is sit in conservative echo chambers like /k/ all day blocking out any opinion.[/QUOTE]
Yknow, seriously, no offense to anyone for gun control, but I find this post really funny because 99/100 times the people vying for gun-control are the ones who don't understand the other side (IE don't understand guns, how to use them, how they are used in real life, etc) where as people in support of guns tend to try and understand the other side and disprove it with facts.
Funny really
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49319871]i couldn't agree more
it's like letting anyone buy anthrax just because there are chemistry hobbyists.
the fact that target shooting is an olympic sport is p dumb too, it's not really a physical feat to shoot targets compared to other olympic sports, and also doesn't stem from killing.[/QUOTE]
what makes target shooting any less legitimate than archery or javelin throwing?
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49319871]i couldn't agree more
it's like letting anyone buy anthrax just because there are chemistry hobbyists.
the fact that target shooting is an olympic sport is p dumb too, it's not really a physical feat to shoot targets compared to other olympic sports, and also doesn't stem from killing.[/QUOTE]
Most sport shooters shoot blanks anyway, but even if they didn't I don't think there's ever been a history of sport shooters shooting anybody. Besides maybe making you more uncomfortable, there are a lot more olympic sports that lead to injury than sport shooting, which is usually quite safe. I don't think metaphorical connotations are a good reason to get rid of things. By that logic, Airsoft guns and violent videogames also stem from violence.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;49319871]
the fact that target shooting is an olympic sport is p dumb too, it's not really a physical feat to shoot targets compared to other olympic sports, and also doesn't stem from killing.[/QUOTE]
if you actually think skeet and target shooting is easy, man have I got news for you. It's difficult, and to get good you have to practice a lot.
[QUOTE=Zyler;49319872]I think the sacrifices made in Australia, UK and Europe made sense in reducing fatalities in the country they were in, I don't think the same policies would necessarily work in the US, although something similar but less extreme might reduce the number of people who commit suicide by gun or die from accidents, which seems to be the majority of the deaths caused by guns.[/QUOTE]
The problem I have is that this opinion seems to be based on the false presupposition that any sacrifice will have a positive impact solely by virtue of it being a sacrifice.
It isn't "putting X restriction on guns will reduce the number of deaths for X reason", it's just "putting X restriction on guns seems reasonable enough, so it should probably reduce the number of gun related deaths"
[QUOTE=ShadowSocks8;49319873]Yknow, seriously, no offense to anyone for gun control, but I find this post really funny because 99/100 times the people vying for gun-control are the ones who don't understand the other side (IE don't understand guns, how to use them, how they are used in real life, etc) where as people in support of guns tend to try and understand the other side and disprove it with facts.
Funny really[/QUOTE]
You're wrong. Both sides have people trying to understand each other. And both sides have those who won't listen to each other and it's like talking to a brick wall.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
