Majority in poll say Florida students 'effective advocates for gun control' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Viper123_SWE;53194171] If America wants to shoot itself up then fine, just dont bring your issues across the pond.[/QUOTE] Is it possible for anyone from outside the US to not make this weird comment?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53194172]No, it can't. How are we supposed to trust the police when we regularly see articles of deep seated corruption, and even cooperation with radical political elements?[/QUOTE] Maybe you ought to look into how you could improve that then? I mean, if the "just solve the underlying issues of crime rather than restrict gun ownership" is supposed to be taken seriously as an argument, then the same should apply to solving the issues behind police corruption so that you can rely on them more for safety. Be consistent.

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53194167]So uh why do you and Americans want guns so bad? I can understand protection, but that can easily be solved with more police.[/QUOTE] how exactly are more police going to make anything safer and not more authoritarian? how exactly are the police supposed to help in situations that are decided in seconds and not minutes?

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194185]Maybe you ought to look into how you could improve that then? I mean, if the "just solve the underlying issues of crime rather than restrict gun ownership" is supposed to be taken seriously as an argument, then the same should apply to solving the issues behind police corruption so that you can rely on them more for safety. Be consistent.[/QUOTE] Yeah where in my post says that we should just ignore police corruption? Eh?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53194167]but that can easily be solved with more police. [/QUOTE] that's categorically untrue in a lot of areas. if cops have a 30+ minute response time, worse in some rural areas, you simply can't rely on them for protection.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53194186]how exactly are more police going to make anything safer and not more authoritarian? how exactly are the police supposed to help in situations that are decided in seconds and not minutes?[/QUOTE] Prevention, dissuasion? Neighborhood police can actually be pretty useful when it comes to reducing criminality, compared to the interventional kind. [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53194189]Yeah where in my post says that we should just ignore police corruption? Eh?[/QUOTE] Your post just seemed dismissive of relying on police for safety. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194192]Even in my city, the average police response time is 7 minutes. In 7 minutes I could be dead, or severely injured. And you can't solve that problem with "more cops" because the entire reason they can't get here is the dispatch structure, the traffic, and the over all layout of the city.[/QUOTE] When you think about it, the US shit urbanization does have more dire consequences than you'd believe at first. Those are some bad response times.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194204] Your post just seemed dismissive of relying on police for safety.[/QUOTE] Well you should never "rely" on police for anything. Even if they have hearts of gold, their cars aren't supersonic. Response times are ridiculous, even in semi-urban areas.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53194214]Well you should never "rely" on police for anything. Even if they have hearts of gold, their cars aren't supersonic. Response times are ridiculous, even in semi-urban areas.[/QUOTE] Over here we don't have really have issues with relying on them. Guess we have better structures and urban layout, as well as slower incidents somehow.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194217]Over here we don't have really have issues with relying on them. Guess we have better structures and urban layout.[/QUOTE] You also have much more police than America does per capita, iirc. Not to mention that police departments vary wildly in the US. You can have things like the Chicago or LA police departments that receive a lot of funding, and have access to a variety of equipment including armored vehicles. Compare that to like, DeKalb, IL, which has a fairly minute force that only has a handful of cars and officers available at any time. Yes, some of that comes from the size of the city mattering, but rural or poor areas tend to have disproportionately ill-equipped/trained police forces.

Frankly I'm not interested in relying on anything that isn't instantaneous.

I'm not a fan of guns but I don't have plans to rely on the police around here for much of anything besides traffic tickets. Anecdotal, but the last time I asked a cop in my area for some help with a sick/injured dog, he told me to dump it into my neighborhood and let someone pick it up tomorrow so uhhhhhhh you know. That was kinda shitty. Doesn't exactly foster great relationships. But anyway, saying "just rely on the police" in America isn't really a great alternative to guns. Would rather just keep a baseball bat in my house or something personally.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53194225]Frankly I'm not interested in relying on anything that isn't instantaneous.[/QUOTE] Yeah and thus you have to deal with criminals dealing with you instantaneously as well. Might seem like a good bargain to you, but I'm fine with police being the ones who wield most weapons, personally.

[QUOTE=Pascall;53194229] But anyway, saying "just rely on the police" in America isn't really a great alternative to guns. Would rather just keep a baseball bat in my house or something personally.[/QUOTE] If you are already willing to bludgeon or threaten to bludgeon someone for threatening you I feel like the jump to a gun isn't much further. In this case you would be using them for the same purpose, one is just better at it's purpose while also requiring safer handling. [QUOTE=_Axel;53194235]Yeah and thus you have to deal with criminals dealing with you instantaneously as well. Might seem like a good bargain to you, but I'm fine with police being the ones who wield most weapons, personally.[/QUOTE] Even if the criminals didn't have guns, I'd still prefer to have a gun, just because it's more effective. I'm not interested in having a fair fight when my life is possibly on the line.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53194248]If you are already willing to bludgeon or threaten to bludgeon someone for threatening you I feel like the jump to a gun isn't much further. In this case you would be using them for the same purpose, one is just better at it's purpose while also requiring safer handling. [/QUOTE] I barely trust myself with a bat, I'm not gonna put a much more lethal weapon in mine or anyone else's hands in my home lol.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53194248]Even if the criminals didn't have guns, I'd still prefer to have a gun, just because it's more effective. I'm not interested in having a fair fight when my life is possibly on the line.[/QUOTE] I'd prefer not to give them a reason to arm themselves. I'd rather get my shit stolen than be shot.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53194225]Frankly I'm not interested in relying on anything that isn't instantaneous.[/QUOTE] Neither are the robbers. You're literally playing some sort of arms race with crooks by arming yourself to ever greater heights. I guess that's an American pasttime or something.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53194298]Neither are the robbers. You're literally playing some sort of arms race with crooks by arming yourself to ever greater heights. I guess that's an American pasttime or something.[/QUOTE] You can't reasonably ask someone who lives in a part of the world with a high volume of guns to unilaterally disarm themselves and hope that the criminal element does the same. People are going to use the most effective tools they can when the stakes are high, and while many if not most of the people who are going to break in and steal my shit aren't interested in killing anyone, that's not a chance I'm willing to take.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194303]Except they're limited by what they can carry and conceal. Which is usually a handgun, and since they don't want one "on the books", its usually a saturday night special, meaning a .38 calibre revolver, that's had its serial number filed off. So in the case of "arms races", those breaking the law are pretty limited by what they have access to, and what isn't going to get them immediately arrested for carrying in public. As for those defending their homes, their limited by their imagination as to what they can use (shot gun, AR-15, pistol, etc etc), and already know the layout of the house.[/QUOTE] No matter how well-equipped you are in terms of weapons, a single bullet fired from a handgun can still kill you. Thanks, but no thanks.

[QUOTE=Tigster;53194138]Did some basic googling and found that Switzerland issues a gun to men as part of "Mandatory Military Service" source:[URL]http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php[/URL] Also, if they think there might be a risk of danger, they take the weapons: the "they give you a gun" argument just seems really flimsy, because it's part of their mandatory military conscription. So I guess if we require conscription here that'd be good, because then we can have mandatory training and lessons. Because you used them as an example, I'm assuming this is what you are arguing for, because the gun issuance is just a part of conscription from what I read, but correct me if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] I don't see why you're bringing this up. Are you discounting Switzerland as a comparison solely due to the fact that they have a reason for issuing assault rifles to every man? Because if the claim is that having guns readily available inevitably leads to mass murder, and gun availability is the sole driving factor in gun violence, I don't see how a sticker saying 'for militia use' makes any difference whatsoever in the outcome. Swiss men have ready access to fully-automatic firearms and ready access to ammunition. If prevalence and accessibility of guns is the driving factor behind mass killings, and the only way to stop mass shootings is to heavily restrict guns, then the country should be a bloodbath. Unless you're saying training and instruction in their use is the difference between rampant mass-murderers and a peaceful society, which I highly doubt, but at least that's an alternative to the stupid 'the only reason is guns, ban guns' rhetoric.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194310]No matter how well-equipped you are in terms of weapons, a single bullet fired from a handgun can still kill you. Thanks, but no thanks.[/QUOTE] If I lived in a country where handguns were reasonably difficult to acquire I'd probably have a similar "thanks but no thanks" opinion, but that place just isn't the United States. Where cities that explicitly ban handguns experience thousands of crimes yearly using handguns.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53194307]You can't reasonably ask someone who lives in a part of the world with a high volume of guns to unilaterally disarm themselves and hope that the criminal element does the same. People are going to use the most effective tools they can when the stakes are high, and while many if not most of the people who are going to break in and steal my shit aren't interested in killing anyone, that's not a chance I'm willing to take.[/QUOTE] Neither are they willing to die to some gun owner defending his material possessions with death, so they react accordingly. We can keep arming ourselves greater and greater to stop robbers in the moment, or we can make it hard for unlawful individuals to get licenses to purchase firearms, work on poverty, and not focus on or revere the horrible fact we may have to murder someone in self defense because their economic desperation led them to theft.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53194322]Neither are they willing to die to some gun owner defending his material possessions with death, so they react accordingly. We can keep arming ourselves greater and greater to stop robbers in the moment, or we can make it hard for unlawful individuals to get licenses to purchase firearms, work on poverty, and not focus on or revere the horrible fact we may have to murder someone in self defense because their economic desperation led them to theft.[/QUOTE] I'm not revering it, I'm just acknowledging it's a reality for someone who doesn't even live in a particularly rough part of town.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194316]Then its not an arms race, now is it? Its a cold war. Most would be robbers don't want to get into a gun fight with a homeowner, they'd rather avoid that at all costs, because they know that even if they "win" they still lose, because now they've got a murder charge, along with breaking and entering, and illegal use of a firearm, and possession of an illegal firearm (since the serial has been filed off), or possession of a stolen firearm (if they were stupid enough to keep the serial number).[/QUOTE] ...But you put them in the same situation of life and death as the one that motivated you to arm yourself in the first place. Most robbers don't want to be murderers, but they don't want to be a corpse either. And thus it's better to shoot a homeowner when discovered than take the risk of getting shot yourself, especially in states where it's perfectly legal to kill an intruder.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194330]Its better to leave the house when you hear the very audible sound that a gun makes when it goes into battery, than to stick around and see what the noise was. If you're not leaving after that.. then you're really at the mercy of the guy who's house you've broken into, now aren't you? Best pray that you're quicker than them, or that they're not someone who was looking for an excuse to legally kill someone.[/QUOTE] Let's just recognize that this is what causes the arms race and the more violent crime in America. Since everyone has a gun, robbers have to start "praying"...or they can get a gun for self defense.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194330]Its better to leave the house when you hear the very audible sound that a gun makes when it goes into battery, than to stick around and see what the noise was.[/QUOTE] That's oddly specific advice to a situation that can widely vary? [QUOTE]If you're not leaving after that.. then you're really at the mercy of the guy who's house you've broken into, now aren't you? Best pray that you're quicker than them, or that they're not someone who was looking for an excuse to legally kill someone.[/QUOTE] Or you don't get to flee on time and get shot anyway? How exactly do you expect robbers to behave when faced with the mentality you display? "Better safe than sorry" applies to criminals' train of thought, just like it does to yours. If it weren't legal to protect material possessions through killing in the first place those situations might be a little less tense. I don't see how you plan to convince me that this is a preferable situation to the one in my own country.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53194343] I don't see how you plan to convince me that this is a preferable situation to the one in my own country.[/QUOTE] I don't think either side is going to convince the other on this particular scenario. Not because I don't think anyones minds can be changed by arguments on FP (I've had my mind changed on [I]guns specifically[/I] because of arguments on FP) but I've seen this particular clash play out for years with no resolution. I'm not going to argue for him but personally I feel like it's just going with what works in your country. He isn't wrong, and neither are you.

[QUOTE=Pascall;53194262]I barely trust myself with a bat, I'm not gonna put a much more lethal weapon in mine or anyone else's hands in my home lol.[/QUOTE] You can easily remedy this by taking safety and training courses, as well as going to a gun range every once in a while. Being afraid of a gun because you don't know how to use it is dumb if the ability to learn is there.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194349]You can easily remedy this by taking safety and training courses, as well as going to a gun range every once in a while. Being afraid of a gun because you don't know how to use it is dumb if the ability to learn is there.[/QUOTE] I can confirm it's not rocket science. I don't know about weapon maintenance, but in a single gun range session I think I got the hang of safety rules, how to reload, aim down sights, fire. It's not too hard to use a 9mm handgun. Bigger calibers kick back though.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53194349]You can easily remedy this by taking safety and training courses, as well as going to a gun range every once in a while. Being afraid of a gun because you don't know how to use it is dumb if the ability to learn is there.[/QUOTE] It's not just "fear", it's issues with coordination, loud noises, and poor eyesight which means it would be irresponsible for me to handle a gun. If you wanna encourage people to use guns, that's all fine and well, but you should also be willing to understand that not everyone wants to or is able to.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53194374]I mean, I can't do that. Our countries are entirely different, and have completely different histories (that intersect at one or two points in history). Quite simply: what works for you works for you. That's it. I'm not, nor have I ever said "the way we do it is best" Because that's unadulterated horseshit. Anyone who's claiming their country has the "best" solution to the problem, any problem, is full of it. Because every country is different, and every countries attitudes are different, and every countries legal codes are different. If you're asking me to change your mind on your countries gunlaws, thats simply not going to happen, i'm not going to make that effort.[/QUOTE] The discussion originated from Raidyr saying he'd take nothing else than instantaneous solutions. I just explained why that attitude wasn't worthwhile to me.