Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
284 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, jar, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (7 members, 277 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,580 Year: 20,616/19,786 Month: 1,013/2,023 Week: 521/392 Day: 65/72 Hour: 6/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Guns
nator
Member (Idle past 486 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 211 of 301 (398328)
04-30-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
04-30-2007 10:51 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
quote:
Women who have been grappling with depression, for instance, are at a much higher likelihood of being sexually assaulted.

People with depression are also at a much greater risk of committing suicide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 10:51 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 11:11 AM nator has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 301 (398333)
04-30-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by nator
04-30-2007 11:00 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
People with depression are also at a much greater risk of committing suicide.

I'm sensitive to that, and that's an argument against the use of firearms as a self-defense measure; but American society seems to have spoken on that point, and accepted that handguns are appropriate tools for defense. (For right or wrong, I'm unconvinced by either side. There's risks with having guns, but there's a lot of instances where they are successfully used to defend oneself and others. If they couldn't serve that function I doubt that police and soldiers would use them.)

Maybe we just need to let people kill themselves, if they want. I'm not sure what justification we have in preventing adults from doing so. If we'd let someone commit assisted suicide because of a painful, chronic, terminal disease, why not a painful, chronic mental illness?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:00 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:18 AM crashfrog has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 486 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 213 of 301 (398336)
04-30-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by crashfrog
04-30-2007 11:11 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
quote:
There's risks with having guns, but there's a lot of instances where they are successfully used to defend oneself and others.

I keep hearing that claim, but so far nobody has actually demonstraded it.

All the stats I've seen show that for every one woman who uses a gun in self defense, over 300 are killed with a gun.

It's not worth it.

quote:
If they couldn't serve that function I doubt that police and soldiers would use them.)

I'm not talking about police and military use, and never have been.

I am talking about civilian, residential use.

quote:
If we'd let someone commit assisted suicide because of a painful, chronic, terminal disease, why not a painful, chronic mental illness?

Because most people who suffer a major depression eventually recover, if they don't kill themselves.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 11:11 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 11:27 AM nator has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 301 (398339)
04-30-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by nator
04-30-2007 11:18 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
All the stats I've seen show that for every one woman who uses a gun in self defense, over 300 are killed with a gun.

Sure. But there is that one woman. And it's not like her act of self-defense killed those 300 other people.

It's not worth it.

I guess, if I had to be the person to tell that woman that she had to be raped or killed because 300 other people would be killed if we let people like her own firearms, I'd want to see more evidence that a prohibition on handguns would prevent those 300 deaths.

But you've done a great job of providing evidence, so I'm not asking for more. But even with what you've presented I can't yet conclude that there's no merit in the idea of handguns for personal defense.

I'm not talking about police and military use, and never have been.

I am talking about civilian, residential use.

I'm not trying to grapple with strawmen, I assure you. But civilians do find themselves in the same situations that soldiers and police do, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that they might benefit from some of the same tools.

I perceive that, being on the fence, I look like I'm on the other side, from both sides.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:18 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:35 AM crashfrog has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 486 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 215 of 301 (398341)
04-30-2007 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by crashfrog
04-30-2007 11:27 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
I can't conclude that there's no merit whatsoever in handguns for self defense, either, although the evidence shows that their legitimate use in self-defense is very rare.

I do not advocate for banning them altogether, just for much stricter regulation on what kinds are available and stricter purchase and storage requirements. You don't need much of a gun to defend yourself, and you certainly don't need a military-style weapon.

I'll also remind you that between 800 and 900 people die from accidental shootings every year in the US.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 11:27 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2007 11:48 AM nator has responded
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 11:51 AM nator has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 216 of 301 (398342)
04-30-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by nator
04-30-2007 11:35 AM


Epidemiological look at it
You might want to try to compare two different societies -- one allowing guns freely and one more restritive and see what the homicide rates are like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:35 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:48 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 301 (398343)
04-30-2007 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by nator
04-30-2007 11:35 AM


Re: Psychological profiles
I do not advocate for banning them altogether, just for much stricter regulation on what kinds are available and stricter purchase and storage requirements.

Yes.

You don't need much of a gun to defend yourself, and you certainly don't need a military-style weapon.

I'm not saying we need full-auto assault rifles, of course, but there's almost no difference between the sidearms issued to soldiers and police and the handguns you can go in and buy as a private citizen.

I disagree with you on hollow-point bullets, though. While they definitely have a higher "kill value", I'd rather private citizens (and cops) were using hollow-points than slugs for two reasons:

1) They're much less effective against body armor, such as that worn by police;
2) They don't penetrate cover very well. So a shot that misses is more likely to be stopped by a wall, instead of passing right through and hitting an unseen bystander. Similarly, a shot that hits its target is much less likely to pass out of the body and hit someone else ("overpenetration.")

Impact-expanding ammunition is more dangerous for the target and much safer for everybody else. Even police-trained shooters hit their target only once out of every six shots or less in the field, so that seems like a net gain.

I'll also remind you that between 800 and 900 people die from accidental shootings every year in the US.

Fair enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 11:35 AM nator has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5858
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 218 of 301 (398345)
04-30-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Nuggin
04-29-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
quote:
Take away guns, criminals will get 'em anyway.

People keep bringing this up as though they were making some sort of valid conclusion, when in fact it's quite simply ridiculous.

There is nothing ridiculous about it, Nuggin. Its common sense that by trying to ban guns, all you really do is ensure the people who don't play by the rules remain armed, while you are disarming those with integrity.

Currently hand guns are readily available to just about everyone in the US. Therefore, a criminal intent on getting his hands on a hand gun has a very easy time in doing so.

I keep hearing you and Nator saying that its way too easy to buy a handgun, but neither of you have offered any solutions or defined what "easy" constitutes in this instance. Explain your rationale to me on why you feel that its easy to buy weapons, as well as giving some suggestions on how to make it more difficult.

I mean, past a background investigation and possibly a psychological profile, what should bar anyone from purchasing a handgun? What are the distinguishing characteristics we are looking for, and which you can get around the problem of discrimination.

Currently hand grenades are NOT readily available to just about anyone in the US. As a result, there are very few hand grenade related crimes in the US.

That's because grenades have been highly protected from the beginning. There is already more weapons in circulation than there are people on earth. Please tell me how you plan on making any difference by taking away people's guns? You think most Americans are going to relinquish their arms?

I think you run the risk of far more violence beyond separatists hanging out in the backwoods of Montana or South Dakota, waiting for the apocalypse. I think your average American would fight for their right to bear arms-- even police officers. And more violence would incur because they feel that the government is infringing on their right to defend themselves-- something which is an inalienable right.

Mao disarmed his people. Hitler disarmed his people. Stalin disarmed his people. What precipitated was genocide on a level so horrific that it could gag a maggot and make Satan blush. So please forgive Americans if they are a little leery of relinquishing their arms given the history on the subject.

And more likely than not, you and Joe Gangbanger will never meet.

I see Joe Gangbanger every day, in every single city I've ever lived in. We meet. I mean, Nuggin, you live in LA where people are killed over glances.

The chances are far greater than one or both of you will be killed by your own handgun rather than kill one another.

Maybe Joe would, but my muzzle control is a little better than that.

You, like Jon, are clearly finding your position a losing one.

Remind me again who the judge of this debate is?

You are just grandstanding. What do you call a person who bitches about something but offers no real solutions, only platitudes? You're doing what many politicians do. You say something appealing to the public that's going to get them fired up, but you carefully avoid how you would implement those plans.

No one is saying that "guns caused Cho to kill", what we are saying, and this goes back to the very first post, is that the increased lethality of weapons available means that when someone like Cho decides to enact carnage (sane or insane) the outcome is far bloodier.

You are offering a band aid to an amputee victim. The root of the problem is how society views violence. If you really want to mitigate violence, you have to cut it off at its source. That would entail you protesting Quentin Tarantino films, Tupac Shakur records, and Grand Theft Auto video games before it means that you disarm Americans.

I mean, really... Suppose Cho wasn't able to buy a handgun legally? You think Cho would have just said, "Oh well... Guess I'm screwed." Hell no. He would have purchased one on the black market or he would have went berserk with a machete. I think its incredibly obtuse, unrealistic, and unfair to blame the NRA for Cho's disposition, rather than look at the American subculture that is feeding these kinds of inequalities.

If Cho only had a shotgun, he would not have so easily concealed it when travelling from building to building. He would not have been able to fire off so many rounds in rapid succession. he would have been forced to take more time to reload, etc etc etc.

What? That's the largest strawman I've ever seen. So, for the record, you advocate Cho owning shotguns, just not handguns. Is that accurate?

Wow, this isn't just a strawman, it's the goddamn Scarecrow. You are now suggesting that you've "turned it around" on the "anti-gun" crowd by suggesting that Cho should have been institutionalized. Congratulations! You've won an argument that no one is having.

Excuse me??? You have basically placed ALL of the blame on handguns and all those who sell them. But you have not:

    1. Offered a single solution

    2. Made Cho accountable for his own actions.

    3. Placed any blame on societies continued acceptance of increasing violence.

    4. Blamed the very people who said he was dangerous, but then let him loose on the street anyway.

Don't you think the psychologists are far more liable than Glock is?

No one here, or anywhere that I can find, is suggesting that Cho was perfectly fine and should have been free to go about his business.

But you make no mention of it in your argument. Instead, you try and turn this around on guns themselves, as if inanimate objects have the will to overpower Cho's mind and compel him to kill.

Guns are not protection from getting shot. Kevlar is protection from getting shot. Gun are made to shoot. That's precisely what they were designed to do.

In feudal times, a person protected themselves with swords. If a person simply had body armor and a shield, they'd still need to employ the use of a sword to ward off the enemy.

In lots of places it is legal to carry firearms and illegal to carry swords. How does that make sense?

Because wielding weapons frightens the public. If you walk around with a sword, the assumption is that you're crazy and you're going to use it. Carrying a small compact weapon discretely ensures that Joe Public won't know any better.


"God is like the sun. You can't look at it. But without it you can't look at anything else." -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 3:06 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 12:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 220 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 12:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 4:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 248 by Nuggin, posted 04-30-2007 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 829 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 219 of 301 (398346)
04-30-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
Mao disarmed his people. Hitler disarmed his people. Stalin disarmed his people. What precipitated was genocide on a level so horrific that it could gag a maggot and make Satan blush. So please forgive Americans if they are a little leery of relinquishing their arms given the history on the subject.

The United Kingdom has disarmed its people. Where's the genocide? And the fact that a lot of these people died from starvation (thanks to collectivization of agriculture) means they should have had guns? Or do you mean all the dissidents killed and sent to camps? Hell, Trotsky fled the USSR and they still got him. Having weapons would not have prevented these genocides.

And as modulus says--even the bad guys don't know/have a really hard time getting guns (in the UK).

And if you'll pay attention to the thread, both schraf and brenna have put forward some solutions.

What is it with people not reading?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 12:47 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 273 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 8:29 PM kuresu has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 486 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 220 of 301 (398348)
04-30-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
You post makes a lot of claims but is rather light on actual evidence. Saying "It's common sense" isn't a good argument.

quote:
Its common sense that by trying to ban guns, all you really do is ensure the people who don't play by the rules remain armed, while you are disarming those with integrity.

Got any objective evidence to back this up?

quote:
I mean, Nuggin, you live in LA where people are killed over glances.

And people aren't killed, but are instead merely punched or hit with beer bottles "over glances" in places where handguns are banned or severely restricted.

The evidence shows that the US is no more violent than most other industrialized nations, but the violence that does happen tends to be far more lethal. This is because of handguns.

The fact is, the cold, hard numbers are not in your favor WRT the self defense argument.

Tens of thousands of people die every year from firearms in this country, second only to auto accidents. That is saying something, considering that compared to guns, far, far more people use automobiles for far, far more hours a day.

Justafiable use of a firearm in self defense is quite rare, according to the evidence.

So, what many self-defense gun advocates are saying is that their right to instantly and easily purchase a handgun and store it in any way they like is more important than the death of tens of thousands of people.

I will repeat in every single post since it seems to be neccessary:

I do not advocate for the banning of all firearms, just for much stricter regulation, licensing, paper trails, and purchase and storage requirements.

quote:
Placed any blame on societies continued acceptance of increasing violence.

Actually, violent crime rates are very much lower than just 15 years ago, and the previous rate was generally flat at that higher level since the mid 70's.

So, you are safer from violent crime now than you were as a kid. Well, you weren't born yet, so am safer now than when I was a kid.

The biggest difference, of course, is in the much more prevalent reporting of violent crime. We hear about it far more often than we ever did back then because the news these days is not about news, but about sensationalism.

You are also a conservative and thus are prone to seeing the world as something to fear and protect oneself from.

(BTW, I strongly suggest that you read this book. It is remarkable. Every conservative should read it.)

And this argument about "criminals will still have guns" is spurious.

Drunk driving is currently illegal, but it wasn't always. It doesn't matter if it is legal or not; the fact is that drunk driving kills people. There are plenty of people who still drive drunk (break the law), but now that we do regulate drunk driving, and the stricter DUI laws have become, the number of drunk driving fatalities has fallen proportionately.

By your logic, the drunk drivers should be able to drive drunk as long as they don't hurt anybody, and that only the drunk drivers who hurt people or get into accidents should be cracked down on by police.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 12:58 PM nator has responded
 Message 274 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 8:32 PM nator has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 301 (398351)
04-30-2007 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
04-30-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
I mean, past a background investigation and possibly a psychological profile, what should bar anyone from purchasing a handgun?

But Schraf and others have pointed out that it's still too easy to buy a legal firearm without even undergoing the background check, through gun shows and other loopholes.

That's what they mean when they say it's "too easy."

Maybe Joe would, but my muzzle control is a little better than that.

I doubt it. If you can rate more than 15% accuracy during an actual gun battle, you're a far better shot than the nation's top police marksmen. (Anybody can drill a paper target - they don't shoot back.)

What do you call a person who bitches about something but offers no real solutions, only platitudes?

Are you just not reading posts? "Close the gun show loophole" sounds like a pretty good solution, for starters. You're the one who seems more interested in the NRA's rhetoric than actual evidence for your position.

You think Cho would have just said, "Oh well... Guess I'm screwed." Hell no. He would have purchased one on the black market or he would have went berserk with a machete.

Right. I'm sure an asian dude from suburbia has black market connections. And perhaps indeed he "goes berserk with a machete." He injures two people before he's wrestled to the ground or hit with a chair or something. (The human clavicle makes it fairly hard to deliver a fatal blow with a chopping, overhand attack with something as light as a machete.)

I think its incredibly obtuse, unrealistic, and unfair to blame the NRA for Cho's disposition, rather than look at the American subculture that is feeding these kinds of inequalities.

The subculture is male sexual entitlement. Do you think it's coincidence that the attack started with the murder of a woman whiom Cho felt had "spurned" him? No, of course not. The culture is the culture of patriarchy, the culture that says that women are objects for the consumption of men, the culture that reinforces "traditional values" of female servitude.

Hey, sounds like the NRA's mailing list! What a coincidence that gun culture and patriarchy go so hand in hand. What a surprise that the contours of the gun debate follow almost exactly the contours of the abortion debate and evolution debate. What a surprise indeed that NJ takes a pro-gun, pro-NRA stance in addition to his opposition of the science of evolution and reproductive freedom.

It's all related, NJ. If you want to know why a guy would pick up a gun and execute 33 people because everybody was getting laid but him, look around at your next gun show.

Made Cho accountable for his own actions.

Cho's dead, in case you hadn't heard. Nobody can "make him accountable for his actions." If you want to watch us all take turns pissing on his grave, I guess we can do that, but how much time do we have to waste telling you what a misogynistic asshat the guy was before you're convinced we're not overlooking his part in his massacre?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-30-2007 12:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-30-2007 8:33 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 301 (398352)
04-30-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kuresu
04-30-2007 12:22 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
Hell, Trotsky fled the USSR and they still got him.

With a mountain climber's axe, incidentally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kuresu, posted 04-30-2007 12:22 PM kuresu has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 486 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 301 (398353)
04-30-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NosyNed
04-30-2007 11:48 AM


Re: Epidemiological look at it
Good idea:

Data is from 1991

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Murders committed with handguns annually:

United States 8,915
Switzerland 53
Sweden 19
Canada 8
United Kingdom 7

Murder rate (per 100,000 people):

United States 8.40
Canada 5.45
Denmark 5.17
Germany 4.20
Norway 1.99
United Kingdom 1.97
Sweden 1.73
Japan 1.20
Finland 0.70

Murder rate for males age 15-24 (per 100,000 people):

United States 24.4
Canada 2.6
Sweden 2.3
Norway 2.3
Finland 2.3
Denmark 2.2
United Kingdom 2.0
Netherlands 1.2
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.5

Rape (per 100,000 people):

United States 37.20
Sweden 15.70
Denmark 11.23
Germany 8.60
Norway 7.87
United Kingdom 7.26
Finland 7.20
Japan 1.40

Armed robbery (per 100,000 people)

United States 221
Canada 94
United Kingdom 63
Sweden 49
Germany 47
Denmark 44
Finland 38
Norway 22
Japan 1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2007 11:48 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:07 PM nator has responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4471 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 224 of 301 (398354)
04-30-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by nator
04-30-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
NJ writes:

Its common sense that by trying to ban guns, all you really do is ensure the people who don't play by the rules remain armed, while you are disarming those with integrity.

shraff writes:

Got any objective evidence to back this up?

It'd be rather difficult to tally all of the people with guns who also have integrity, even if we could reach an agreement on the definition. 'It's common sense' is, albiet, a weak excuse.

But let's look at it rhetorically: Those with integrity are, by definition, going to obey the law? (I know this isn't the case 100% of the time in every respect, but by the definition of integrity this is the general concensus.) That means that most of them won't have guns if a ban is placed.

A ban doesn't, by its definition and implications, 'ensure' that the 'bad guys' stay armed. But, unless the bad guys have 'integrity' in all respects (this concept contradicts itself, doesn't it?) then they'll be more than happy to keep Jolly Mr. 9mm around for whatever purpose. The knowledge that 99% of American homes would have no firearms as a result of a ban would motivate some criminals who might've been deterred by this (not saying ALL criminals are held back by this) to be more aggressive, as well.

Is it hard evidence? No. But unless you'll argue that all bad guys have a)integrity or b)NO fear of guns in american households, you can't say they'll lose the guns.

Unless you're saying the majority of people with integrity will keep their guns despite a ban (which would be illegal), then you can't deny that there's a good lot of people who would be defenseless.

I know that you're not advocating a ban, and I actually agree with most of your ideas.

HOWEVER, while your stats have been relevant (albiet a little vague here and there, but that's not your fault) this next part requires addressing:

You are also a conservative and thus are prone to seeing the world as something to fear and protect oneself from.

I beg to differ; conservatives where I'm from see the world as something to divide and conquer. :p

But seriously, if you're telling me that there's nothing to fear from this world, and nothing to protect oneself from, come on. But I know you're much smarter than that, so I guess our only beef on that lies in what % of the world do we keep our guard up to? I'd put it around 40% or 85%, depending on which of two cities I find myself in.


I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 12:35 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2007 1:06 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded
 Message 228 by nator, posted 04-30-2007 1:17 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 301 (398355)
04-30-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing
04-30-2007 12:58 PM


Re: Criminals will still get guns
The knowledge that 99% of American homes would have no firearms

Surely that's just about already true? Maybe not 99%, but how many American households have handguns in them?

Criminals don't manufacture guns, and the "street" doesn't conjure guns wholesale from thin air. The reason that criminals are able to procure illegal handguns so easily is because guns are being constantly manufactured to fill the legal demand.

The loss of the legal gun market, and presumably programs to interdict or buy up the street's supply of firearms, would leave a lot less guns available for criminal procurement.

But I know you're much smarter than that, so I guess our only beef on that lies in what % of the world do we keep our guard up to? I'd put it around 40% or 85%, depending on which of two cities I find myself in.

Well, you're not a woman. I imagine that in Schraf's case she probably begins to "keep her guard up" when she walks out her front door. If you view yourself as being in danger, then by all means take steps to reduce that danger; it's not at all clear that carrying a firearm is a way to do that. Do you carry one, by the way? If not, isn't that because you know on some level that the level of personal defense you'd gain isn't worth the risks and costs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 12:58 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 04-30-2007 1:20 PM crashfrog has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019