[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44741418]God are you ignorant on how stand your ground works. Either that or you're just purposely trying to start shit.[/QUOTE]
Cry me a river.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("quit being rude" - postal))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44741429]Cry me a river.[/QUOTE]
That "comeback" doesn't even make sense.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44741444]That "comeback" doesn't even make sense.[/QUOTE]
I'm not usually one to stir shit, but....
"Antdawg's argument"
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5027205/itsnothing.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44740819]I think gun culture in the US (and FP) is ridiculous[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your opinion, because we totally don't have someone spouting this ignorant comment every thread.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;44741444]That "comeback" doesn't even make sense.[/QUOTE]
It's his method of stating that he's trolling the thread.
Having a gun also invokes fear in a potential attacker, driving them away. SYG lets you pew in fight-or-flight.
If you are in reasonable belief that your life is in danger because someone is attacking you, you should fully have the right to defend yourself until you no longer believe your life is in danger. If that means killing your attacker, then so be it. What logic is there in it being illegal to defend yourself from a lethal attacker?
[QUOTE=MR2;44742126]Thanks for your opinion, because we totally don't have someone spouting this ignorant comment every thread.[/QUOTE]
I also believe the culture is ridiculous. People shouldnt have to live in a society where they feel like they could possibly be killed by just being there. It's just showing how people perceive danger in their communities
[QUOTE=Quark:;44742733]If you are in reasonable belief that your life is in danger because someone is attacking you, you should fully have the right to defend yourself until you no longer believe your life is in danger. If that means killing your attacker, then so be it. What logic is there in it being illegal to defend yourself from a lethal attacker?[/QUOTE]
who said you shouldn't defend yourself? and who said it should be illegal?
I had a gun stuck in my face and I got robbed twice, and to be perfectly honest having a gun wouldn't have helped me either time. In fact, if I had a gun the guy who robbed me the first time probably would have taken it since he made me turn out my pockets. In my experience, when you get robbed they come right up to you and stick it in your face before you even know what's happening, if I had tried to draw and fire I would have been killed in both cases (assuming the guns were real and loaded, which I beleive they were both times) that said, if a bystander had been armed he/she may have been able to help me. I have changed my mind on this issue several times over the last couple of years, and at this point I don't really know where I stand on it.
I get the argument that less guns = less guns, but I also believe that people should be allowed to defend themselves against an intruder. I will forever be biased towards gun ownership because of my personal experience, but I have to admit that a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric is convincing. I don't own a gun, and I never have, but I like knowing that I could get one if I felt like it. I guess I'll just wait and see how this all plays out, and hope the next guy who robs me doesn't kill me.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44743140]who said you shouldn't defend yourself? and who said it should be illegal?[/QUOTE]
This guy, by implication -
[QUOTE=Antdawg;44741370]Your silly rules like the stand your ground law which means you can get away with murdering someone?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Quark:;44741061]You'd better throw away all of your fire extinguishers right now then. If your house is on fire, you don't need fire extinguishers. Just call the Fire Department. Surely if your house is on fire you should seek help from the Fire Department. :downs:[/QUOTE]
Clearly your analogy works because fire extinguishers are a tool made to kill people.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;44745001]Clearly your analogy works because fire extinguishers are a tool made to kill people.[/QUOTE]
They are a tool made to protect you. What they are designed to protect you from is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=MR2;44742126]Thanks for your opinion, because we totally don't have someone spouting this ignorant comment every thread.[/QUOTE]
I mean it's just an opinion. Gun enthusiasts don't come across like model train enthusiasts or bird watching enthusiasts. They come across as violent and crazy. If I collected Nazi paraphernalia and hung it all around my house people wouldn't really want to associate with me. Same thing as gun people. I feel like I'm talking to timothy McVeigh anytime I talk to someone who believes it's a fundamental right to own a gun (independent of self defence and crime. the people who believe that owning guns is to help defend against the government). They just reek paranoia to me.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44745141]I mean it's just an opinion. Gun enthusiasts don't come across like model train enthusiasts or bird watching enthusiasts. They come across as violent and crazy. If I collected Nazi paraphernalia and hung it all around my house people wouldn't really want to associate with me. Same thing as gun people. I feel like I'm talking to timothy McVeigh anytime I talk to someone who believes it's a fundamental right to own a gun (independent of self defence and crime. the people who believe that owning guns is to help defend against the government). They just reek paranoia to me.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me? Governments turn against their own people all the time.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44732146][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1003832_507950729276182_1662980201_n.jpg[/t]
Because if life is as valuable as society puts it, people should be allowed to defend themselves.[/QUOTE]
So ban guns, but don't ban guns?
[QUOTE=Quark:;44743366]This guy, by implication -[/QUOTE]
oh ok, its fine if you're replying to that guy, i just got the idea that you got that from everyone else in this thread
[QUOTE=proboardslol;44745141]I mean it's just an opinion. Gun enthusiasts don't come across like model train enthusiasts or bird watching enthusiasts. They come across as violent and crazy. If I collected Nazi paraphernalia and hung it all around my house people wouldn't really want to associate with me. Same thing as gun people. I feel like I'm talking to timothy McVeigh anytime I talk to someone who believes it's a fundamental right to own a gun (independent of self defence and crime. the people who believe that owning guns is to help defend against the government). They just reek paranoia to me.[/QUOTE]
You sure do enjoy looking down on people just because they enjoy a thing that you don't.
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;44740598]Because those services have slow response times, and often in really bad situations, they arrive too late. [U]Law Enforcement's job isn't to protect you, btw.[/U] My guns give me a better chance then nothing, not to mention, firearms happen to be a hobby of mine. I like shooting, etc.[/QUOTE]
You do realise this ruling was only made because of the implications of saying the opposite would be? If they ruled that Police had to protect you, and someone called 911 and said they were worried someone was going to harm them, the Police would be obliged to protect them. Even if "protect" meant "standing outside as your personal bodyguard until you dismiss them". Rather than get into a legal spider-web trying to define what does and does not constitute protection and dealing with court cases and a whole legal mess, it was easier to just say "Police are not required to protect you".
So yes, the Police will come if you call 911 with an emergency and they will deal with it [I]if[/I] the emergency is ongoing (perpetrator confirmed on-site). No, they are not obliged to stand outside your house and "protect you" because you noticed $3 and a can of soup went missing last week.
[QUOTE=James xX;44732019]Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Surely if they have a problem with a group such as harassment or threats they could seek help from the police?
I guess what I'm saying is, there are services set up to protect the people, why should the people therefore feel the need to also protect themselves?[/QUOTE]
Yeah when there is a robber in your house with a gun, go ahead and call the police and lets see how much good that does you. Chances are you will be shot or beat up very fast and by the time the police is there, he'll be gone already.
This isn't just a thing in the US, goes for any country. You'd need 10 second response times (sometimes even that would be too slow).
The one great thing the US has is allowing people self defense.
[QUOTE=Quark:;44742733]If you are in reasonable belief that your life is in danger because someone is attacking you, you should fully have the right to defend yourself until you no longer believe your life is in danger. If that means killing your attacker, then so be it. What logic is there in it being illegal to defend yourself from a lethal attacker?[/QUOTE]
What if the lethal attacker hadn't been in the first place? Unless you pose a threat, why bring a weapon? Not every burglar wishes to be a murderer as well.
You have the right to defend yourself, but in my opinion passive defense is the best way - if there's no reason to kill you, why do that? Sure, it happens, but I'd argue that the statistically safer way is to simply make guns much less accessible.
Not saying it's possible in the US, but you're making a strawman argument here.
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=acds;44752738]Yeah when there is a robber in your house with a gun, go ahead and call the police and lets see how much good that does you. Chances are you will be shot or beat up very fast and by the time the police is there, he'll be gone already.
This isn't just a thing in the US, goes for any country. You'd need 10 second response times (sometimes even that would be too slow).
The one great thing the US has is allowing people self defense.[/QUOTE]
Allowing people to defend themselves has resulted in extremely accessible weapons for criminals. Probably not the one great thing the US has.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44752895]What if the lethal attacker hadn't been in the first place? Unless you pose a threat, why bring a weapon? Not every burglar wishes to be a murderer as well.
You have the right to defend yourself, but in my opinion passive defense is the best way - if there's no reason to kill you, why do that? Sure, it happens, but I'd argue that the statistically safer way is to simply make guns much less accessible.
Not saying it's possible in the US, but you're making a strawman argument here.[/QUOTE]Coercion. People are more pliable if the threat of death is looming over them. Break in to a home and want to keep everyone under control? Hold a gun at them. Or a knife. Or a bat. Criminals have used far more than guns for crimes and will continue to.
And making guns less accessible is almost impossible. You virtually cannot make them less accessible to criminals, no matter how many you confiscate. And statistically you're wrong, allowing concealed carry has actually shown to be beneficial for reducing crime.
Also, its unreasonable and frankly wrong that innocent people should have to be passive when they are being threatened. No one should have to bow to an aggressor.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44752945]And making guns less accessible is almost impossible.[/QUOTE]
less acessible, not "not acessible at all"
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
it's definitely very, very possible
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44752974]less acessible, not "not acessible at all"
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
it's definitely very, very possible
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
it's definitely very, very possible[/QUOTE]Not really, no. The supply is ridiculous. You could barely make a scratch in it. Even a complete, nation-wide ban on all firearms with mandatory buyback would only dent it.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44752989]Not really, no. The supply is ridiculous. You could barely make a scratch in it. Even a complete, nation-wide ban on all firearms with mandatory buyback would only dent it.[/QUOTE]
and why exactly would you think that?
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
its not like itd be a sudden thing, if they did it itd most likely be a very slow process
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44752998]and why exactly would you think that?[/QUOTE]Because the supply of illicit firearms is, again, ridiculously massive as well as virtually impossible to track.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44752630]You do realise this ruling was only made because of the implications of saying the opposite would be? If they ruled that Police had to protect you, and someone called 911 and said they were worried someone was going to harm them, the Police would be obliged to protect them. Even if "protect" meant "standing outside as your personal bodyguard until you dismiss them". Rather than get into a legal spider-web trying to define what does and does not constitute protection and dealing with court cases and a whole legal mess, it was easier to just say "Police are not required to protect you".
So yes, the Police will come if you call 911 with an emergency and they will deal with it [I]if[/I] the emergency is ongoing (perpetrator confirmed on-site). No, they are not obliged to stand outside your house and "protect you" because you noticed $3 and a can of soup went missing last week.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Police aren't there to "protect you". It's for the same reason that I, being certified in CPR and other first responder areas, aren't "required" to perform CPR on someone if I feel that I don't have the appropriate PPE available. The ruling was made to protect the lives of emergency personnel.
Cops don't carry firearms to protect you. They carry firearms to protect themselves. They can't say "That's a bad part of town, I'm going to stay away from there." They have to go where there is an emergency. The only person who is responsible for your safety is yourself. Nobody else has that responsibility. So I'm going to use the best tools available to ensure my safety.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44752945]Coercion. People are more pliable if the threat of death is looming over them. Break in to a home and want to keep everyone under control? Hold a gun at them. Or a knife. Or a bat. Criminals have used far more than guns for crimes and will continue to.
And making guns less accessible is almost impossible. You virtually cannot make them less accessible to criminals, no matter how many you confiscate. And statistically you're wrong, allowing concealed carry has actually shown to be beneficial for reducing crime.
Also, its unreasonable and frankly wrong that innocent people should have to be passive when they are being threatened. No one should have to bow to an aggressor.[/QUOTE]
The point here isn't to protect property, it's to protect life. The less reason the criminal has to shoot anyone the better, whether they're threatened or not. Neither a knife nor a bat is as lethal as a gun, so they would definitely be a deescalation of the situation, though I'm not completely sure what kind of point you're trying to make.
Again, I'm not saying it's possible in the US, but straw purchases (or simply family) are a major source of weapons for criminals. Not that I'd completely rule it out, but I'm gonna need a source on that concealed carry statistic - I'm pretty sure the difference is neglible.
You might call it unreasonable, but I find it preferable to have anyone (even the attacker) killed.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44753019]The point here isn't to protect property, it's to protect life. The less reason the criminal has to shoot anyone the better, whether they're threatened or not. Neither a knife nor a bat is as lethal as a gun, so they would definitely be a deescalation of the situation, though I'm not completely sure what kind of point you're trying to make.[/QUOTE]Protection of ones property is typically considered a part of self-defense.
[QUOTE]Again, I'm not saying it's possible in the US, but straw purchases (or simply family) are a major source of weapons for criminals. Not that I'd completely rule it out, but I'm gonna need a source on that concealed carry statistic - I'm pretty sure the difference is neglible. [/QUOTE][url]http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol71/iss4/15/[/url]
[QUOTE]You might call it unreasonable, but I find it preferable to have anyone (even the attacker) killed.[/QUOTE]I find it preferable to allow the innocent the means to safety and security. In many areas that have SYG laws, you have to declare you are armed and give the perpetrator time to flee. You can't be like the guy who made his home look abandoned and ambushed and executed the two kids.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44753006]Because the supply of illicit firearms is, again, ridiculously massive as well as virtually impossible to track.[/QUOTE]
dedicated criminals will still be able to get their hands on weapons, sure, but are they the majority? would your common mugger really go to such lengths to get their hands on a gun? im sure itd at least stop the one guy who snaps and decides to shoot up a school, or kill his wife when he finds out shes having an affair, etc etc
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.