[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
The alternative as a woman is to live in a clan and be protected -but also at the mercy- of your male siblings.
[/quote]
Obviously, not particularly appealing.
Yep, who but Taliban would like a “polite” society?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
I agree. For instance introduce firearm safety and shooting lessons in the first year of high school.
[/quote]
Schools in New York city used to have rifle teams but they stopped.
I’ll never understand why people think the police can protect them. Just look up the average police response time in your area and then imagine some tweeker trying to rob,rape,kill (or all three) you. MMA can’t stop crazy.
[quote]jawara wrote:
phaethon wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
I agree. For instance introduce firearm safety and shooting lessons in the first year of high school.
Schools in New York city used to have rifle teams but they stopped.
I’ll never understand why people think the police can protect them. Just look up the average police response time in your area and then imagine some tweeker trying to rob,rape,kill (or all three) you. MMA can’t stop crazy.[/quote]
Your response time to a threat on your own is measured in one second to maybe a minute to two. now explain to me how the police will be able to protect you. Those that favor most gun restrictions are not grounded in reality and common sense.
How can a weaker or elderly person fight back against a younger, stronger, faster opponent. an opponent who has no compunctions against violence to get what they want.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, but the police are all most of us really have. Police, and the convention that affluent sane people don’t kill each other. Basically my only form of self defense is my zip code. I don’t think that’s a particularly good state of affairs, though.
Tiribulus, I like your quotes.
[/quote]
QFT.
Gun laws restrict law abiding people…they dont restrict criminals, who will have guns anyway. Because if it did, criminals wouldnt have guns.
Honestly i dont think any gun control laws are needed, because law abiding people will not commit crime with them and criminas will get them regardless. And look at London, where guns are real hard to get, so criminals just substitute knives and blunt objects for guns.
I live in Detroit and let me tell you, we were the third worst city for violent crime behind New Orleans, LA and Camden, NJ. The police cannot protect you. In this city 7 out of 10 homicides go unsolved. You are responsible for protecting yourself. I had a friend I grew up with that was murdered in a robbery here in Detroit in 2007 at the beginning of summer.
He was on leave from the U.S. Navy, coming back to visit. He and his brother stopped at a liquor store around 10 o’clock at night. As he left the store, two men came up to him pulled a gun and ordered him to empty is pockets and take off his glasses, which he did. They shot him anyway. He was 22. His brother who was in the car, witnessed the whole thing.
The point of this story is that him and his brother were unarmed and where were the police? Oh they came, but after my friend was dead. So if you want to know if the police can protect you, lets go ask his brother or his parents he left behind. But we cant ask him because he’s dead.
[quote]jawara wrote:
I’ll never understand why people think the police can protect them. Just look up the average police response time in your area and then imagine some tweeker trying to rob,rape,kill (or all three) you. MMA can’t stop crazy.[/quote]
I’m not even sure if they do think the police can protect them. Frankly they are brainwashed.
I have a friend who has been raped and she still is against firearm ownership. So she knows that the police can’t be there to save you…and she still makes the argument that the police are all you need. I will never understand some people.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
jawara wrote:
I’ll never understand why people think the police can protect them. Just look up the average police response time in your area and then imagine some tweeker trying to rob,rape,kill (or all three) you. MMA can’t stop crazy.
I’m not even sure if they do think the police can protect them. Frankly they are brainwashed.
I have a friend who has been raped and she still is against firearm ownership. So she knows that the police can’t be there to save you…and she still makes the argument that the police are all you need. I will never understand some people.
[/quote]
The problem is many people believe not what they see, but what they want to believe. This is a basic common sense issue, but common sense isn’t common.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Well, but the police are all most of us really have. Police, and the convention that affluent sane people don’t kill each other. Basically my only form of self defense is my zip code. I don’t think that’s a particularly good state of affairs, though.
Tiribulus, I like your quotes.
QFT.[/quote]
Let me ask Alisa for some clarification on what she means exactly by this before I go off on a wide eyed tirade against what seems to me a perfectly preposterous and self destructive surrender to evil.
I am going to first assume that I’m misunderstanding.
Okay, clarification:
“my only form of self defense is my zip code” means that, at least at the moment, I live in a safe area. I don’t have to worry about getting killed because I’m lucky enough that nobody gets killed here. It’s not a great state of affairs because not everybody is so fortunate.
If you live in a less safe area (which I have) then your self defense is common sense – not going out alone after dark, etc. Even then, things happen.
I don’t think I’m encouraging surrender to evil, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Alisa, your number one defense is not your zip code, but your sense of awareness. I could write about this for hours. Being aware will keep you safe more than any gun or martial arts training.
Col. Jeff Cooper wrote about color coding in awareness. Most live in condition white, which is standard cluelessness. Unfortunately, many women live here. Men to but women seem to be more guilty of this.
Yellow is a relaxed state of awareness. this is paying attention, but not so hard that it will cause you physical and emotional distress.
Orange is there is soemthign bad going on and you’re ready for some action. Run, fight. the bad thing is not happening yet, but you think it’s going to.
Red is what is seems. Warning, warning. You are being assaulted , the fire alarm is going off and the building is on fire, are good examples. Zip code helps of course. It’s smart to not go where angels fear to tread of course, but being aware can save you life.
I hadn’t heard about that. That’s probably good to keep in mind.
[quote]clip11 wrote:
Honestly i dont think any gun control laws are needed, because law abiding people will not commit crime with them and criminas will get them regardless. And look at London, where guns are real hard to get, so criminals just substitute knives and blunt objects for guns.[/quote]
The idea that there are law abiding citizens and criminals with a clear division is ridiculously simplistic.
Over and again it has been shown in studies that people do not have a fixed set of moral values that they apply uniformly regardless of context. What actually happens is that people have tendencies that are very heavily influenced by the local environment and situation that the person finds themselves in.
Taking your final point, illegal guns are not that hard to get in London however traditionally in London a criminal doesn’t need a gun because the majority of people don’t have guns. More recently though there has been an influx of gun culture into London gangs therefore the incidence of gun use has increased.
I am not arguing for tougher gun laws in the US I am just pointing out what I percieve to eb the errors in what you have written.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
More recently though there has been an influx of gun culture into London gangs therefore the incidence of gun use has increased.
[/quote]
What does this mean? What exactly is ‘gun culture’? Are you implying that “London gangs” are the template for law abiding citizens (excuse me, subjects) of England?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
More recently though there has been an influx of gun culture into London gangs therefore the incidence of gun use has increased.
What does this mean? What exactly is ‘gun culture’? Are you implying that “London gangs” are the template for law abiding citizens (excuse me, subjects) of England?[/quote]
No, what I am saying is that carrying a gun has become increasingly a sign of status for a London gang member therefore more gang members are carrying guns. This has led to an increase in shootings, the increase in shootings then leads to gang members feeling they need a gun to protect themselves. This is a vicious circle which is fueled by the availability of cheap Eastern European firearms.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
More recently though there has been an influx of gun culture into London gangs therefore the incidence of gun use has increased.
What does this mean? What exactly is ‘gun culture’? Are you implying that “London gangs” are the template for law abiding citizens (excuse me, subjects) of England?
No, what I am saying is that carrying a gun has become increasingly a sign of status for a London gang member therefore more gang members are carrying guns. This has led to an increase in shootings, the increase in shootings then leads to gang members feeling they need a gun to protect themselves. This is a vicious circle which is fueled by the availability of cheap Eastern European firearms.[/quote]
OK, I see what you’re saying-- thanks for the clarification.
What this illustrates is that ‘gun control’ is only for those who choose to follow the law. In this scenario, the criminals KNOW that commonfolk will (likely) be unarmed to defend themselves.
The strict enforcement of law is at the detriment of the law abiding citizens.
As I’ve said before, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the War on Terror have gone so well we need a War on Guns. The illegality of drugs has erased the existence of drugs, drug culture, black market drug trafficking, and the violence that surrounds drugs. The WoD specifically, can be our model for the War on Guns.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
More recently though there has been an influx of gun culture into London gangs therefore the incidence of gun use has increased.
What does this mean? What exactly is ‘gun culture’? Are you implying that “London gangs” are the template for law abiding citizens (excuse me, subjects) of England?
No, what I am saying is that carrying a gun has become increasingly a sign of status for a London gang member therefore more gang members are carrying guns. This has led to an increase in shootings, the increase in shootings then leads to gang members feeling they need a gun to protect themselves. This is a vicious circle which is fueled by the availability of cheap Eastern European firearms.
OK, I see what you’re saying-- thanks for the clarification.
What this illustrates is that ‘gun control’ is only for those who choose to follow the law. In this scenario, the criminals KNOW that commonfolk will (likely) be unarmed to defend themselves.
The strict enforcement of law is at the detriment of the law abiding citizens.
[/quote]
You could argue that or you could argue that the prevelence of guns and the view of guns as the way to resolve violent situations would lead to an increase in their use illegally.
Probably there is an element of truth on both sides of the argument but the real issue is trying to stop people who have a criminal intent getting their hands on guns. Banning assault weapons will not do that.