Non-IT News Thread
-
@JaredBusch said:
I wasn't supporting the conversation, I was highlighting your self creating stats.
How are my stats self creating?
-
@dafyre said:
That people carry guns increases the chance that this situation will arise. I want to stop the situation from coming up rather than equipping a small percentage of the population to have a violent confrontation when it does arise.
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them?
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
-
@dafyre said:
And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight?
You are basing this discussion around there being a fight. The goal is to reduce the number of fights in total and to reduce the level of the fights that remain. You are assuming that there will be fights and that the criminals will have guns. Neither of those things are common as it is and the reason to stop people having guns is to reduce them both.
-
@dafyre said:
Remember how well that worked out for the police in France?
What do you mean? Do the French have a more dangerous record for being shot than American police? I'm not aware of this stat. What is the basis of it, French police are unarmed and regularly shot by criminals?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm not saying robbers would not be armed. But they might not be armed with guns. People are robbed in other ways normally, guns are not the normal means. It's not like the US is the only country with robberies.
True, true. But it is still that mentality that I grew up with. If a weapon comes out, whoever brought it out is intent on using it.
You can always leave.
True. And I was raised to walk away from a fight if the other person would let me... But I refer to my last sentence. If a weapon comes out they are going to use it.
When you stand to attack people robbing you it becomes object defense. If someone want to take my car with a gun, I'm just going to let them.
Arguably, this is true. What if your wife and/ or kids were in the car? (I ask this because more often than not, my wife and kid are with me when in town). If I am alone, and I feel like they really would just take the car and go, fine, they can have it. But that isn't likely to happen in my mind.
-
@dafyre said:
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed. Japan has extrreme gun control laws. Guns are extremely rare there. Thus there are also fewer random criminals with guns. Does it stop organized crime from obtaining guns in Japan? No, it barely even slows them down.
But the random criminal is not going to have a gun.
-
And I'm not suggesting that the police be unarmed, they are clearly police not to be confused with criminals. That they should or should not be armed is another discussion worth having, does being a copper in the UK make you more at risk than being one in the US? I suspect that it makes you safer, but it's only a guess.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@dafyre said:
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed. Japan has extrreme gun control laws. Guns are extremely rare there. Thus there are also fewer random criminals with guns. Does it stop organized crime from obtaining guns in Japan? No, it barely even slows them down.
But the random criminal is not going to have a gun.
Same all throughout Europe. Fear of guns pretty much doesn't exist (until you say you are an American and no, I'm not kidding.)
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm not saying robbers would not be armed. But they might not be armed with guns. People are robbed in other ways normally, guns are not the normal means. It's not like the US is the only country with robberies.
True, true. But it is still that mentality that I grew up with. If a weapon comes out, whoever brought it out is intent on using it.
Sure. And likewise I feel that anyone who leaves the house with a weapon has "taken it out" with the intent to use it.
But that's not the point. The point is - making it less likely to have any of that happen. You are assuming that you will be robbed, they will be armed, they will attack you, etc. That's many layers of unlikely cases and all ones that by removing guns you lower the chances of happening.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
While I don't argue the second point... Let's take a look at Chicago from 2014 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all)
And here... (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/)
I like the second link better because it gives links to the resources.
-
@dafyre said:
True. And I was raised to walk away from a fight if the other person would let me... But I refer to my last sentence. If a weapon comes out they are going to use it.
I agree - in the sense that carrying or brandishing a weapon incites fear and constitutes use. But how does that make it sensible to carry a gun yourself? That someone who does pull a weapon on you might plan to shoot you (actually still rather unlikely, normally they want you to back away) doesn't change the overall point that it is by having so many guns available that they are more likely to have one and more likely to use it on you.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@dafyre said:
It will stop criminals who want guns from getting them? And then I am left bringing fists to a gun fight? Remember how well that worked out for the police in France? Sure, I could run, but you gotta remember my mindset. If I see a weapon, I assume it is going to be used... That is just the way I was brought up.
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed. Japan has extrreme gun control laws. Guns are extremely rare there. Thus there are also fewer random criminals with guns. Does it stop organized crime from obtaining guns in Japan? No, it barely even slows them down.
But the random criminal is not going to have a gun.
Same all throughout Europe. Fear of guns pretty much doesn't exist (until you say you are an American and no, I'm not kidding.)
Don't think I am supporting your side of this though.
Guns are a tool and need to be treated as such.
The problems are generally all political, as with any other issue in the US.
The lobbies against intelligent changes to gun control laws are completely to blame.
The same goes for the lobbies against voter ID requirements
The same goes for the lobbies against immigration reform.Each of these things have tons of simple changes that the vast majority of the population support. But the extremist political groups that scream loud enough and put enough money into the pockets of politicians have blocked changes for decades.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Many, yes. That's the biggest advantage. Every person carrying a gun legally makes it easier for a criminal to do so too.
While I don't argue the second point... Let's take a look at Chicago from 2014 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/24/chicago-crime-rate-drops-as-concealed-carry-gun-pe/?page=all)
And here... (http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/)
I like the second link better because it gives links to the resources.
You are only looking at one portion of the scenario. Yes, IF we have guns allowed in public then you should allow them concealed. I totally agree and you'll see I said that many pages back.
It's guns allowed in public at all that I disagree with.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Actually, it will, if all of the existing guns are removed.
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
-
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Why is that a slippery slope or in any way a bad thing? That would be a great thing. That's exactly what I want removed.
-
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Once we can't have guns anymore.... it would stop there right? Where else is there for it to go?
-
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
No, you are reading into my statement. That statement was simply a clarification of what Scott was saying. Removal of guns from the general populace DOES in fact reduce the incidence of criminals with guns. I was not advocating for anything.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Why is that a slippery slope or in any way a bad thing? That would be a great thing. That's exactly what I want removed.
So now that they've gone and taken away the 2nd Ammendment. What's stop them from taking the first... or fourth? "You let us take away your right to bear arms. Now we are going to censor you."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
How is it out of context? For the person who has a conceled carry permit, why should they not carry their weapon with them?
Because it puts everyone at risk. It lowers the safety of people in public.
It does? How?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Now you're on the slippery slope of taking away 2nd Ammendment rights. Because once it starts there... where does it stop?
Once we can't have guns anymore.... it would stop there right? Where else is there for it to go?
Oh, don't be a simpleton. Those types of changes are never self contained to only one issue. If things in the US change enough that enough of the populace would support this type of constitutional amendment, how many other thing would be taken away by a government wielding this type of fear over the populace prior to this change?
I live firmly rooted in reality not some Utopian dream world.
