Easier to Kill w/ a Gun Than W/out a Gun

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Being from Mexico - you would think you would keep your nose in your own affairs.

How many people have been murdered in Cd. Juarez, and other Border towns in 2008? Like 1500 or so, right?

And Mexico has gun laws prohibiting the private ownership of “military weapons”.

Could your hypocrisy in this matter possibly be any greater?

Thanks for playing. Now run on back to the MMA forum. You display a far greater aptitude for the UFC than you do about US gun issues.

Just for the record, I am not from Mexico, I just live here. Guns are certainly an issue here as evidenced by shootouts between drug gangs and police here in Leon on a bit too regular a basis for my liking over the last couple of months.

At least here in Mexico, if the police stop you and you are carrying a gun, unless you have a licence to carry (which you can apply for in certain situations) then you are a criminal. This makes it easier for the police to do their job.

You know what though, even though I live in a supposedly violent country and I don’t have a gun, I sleep comfortably and safely in my bed every night.[/quote]

Just because you choose what you think is the best action for yourself doesn’t give your or anyone (especially some hypocritical politician protected by the SS with who know what weaponry) to decide how I should protect me and mine.

42

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
You claim his analogy is stupid while comparing a radioctive bomb to guns.

Drugs in general cause people to do irresponsible things including actions that lead to the death of others. Alcohol “Made” the guy violent, why not vilify alcohol in the situation? Alcohol kills lots of people (far more than irresponsible gun use).

It also doesn’t have any societal or materially personal benefits. If it hadn’t been there It would be more likely that there were no violence at all, much less someone dying. Why aren’t you arguing against alcohol, it seems more logical to me than the gun.[/quote]

I deliberately gave a stupid example because I felt his examples were stupid.

And it is probably true that were alcohol discovered today it would be banned within a year. It is possibly only because of the large amount of tax that the government gets from the sale of alcohol that the law hasn’t been changed.

I could probably start down the path of arguing societal and personal benefits from alcohol use but I don’t want to hijack my own thread.

I actually don’t think a change of the law in the US over gun ownership would help in the short term. The genie is out of the bottle, there are far too many guns in public ownership.

I belive a huge part of the issue is the politics of terror supported through the media shock stories that cause people to think that they are in mortal danger of a home invasion at any point.

It is ironic that the peope who are arguing for personal freedom and liberty do not even realise how they are being manipulated by their government into behaving in a more controllable way.

43

I’ll start you off:

Why does Mexico do so badly in the Olympics?.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because anyone that can run, jump or swim is already in the US!

44

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Just because you choose what you think is the best action for yourself doesn’t give your or anyone (especially some hypocritical politician protected by the SS with who know what weaponry) to decide how I should protect me and mine.

[/quote]

Are you happy that that argument also applies to the criminals that you feel the need to protect yourself from?

Does this not lead to an arms race? And if it does, who is more likely to fire first? Previously someone robbing your house would carry a baseball bat and threaten you. Now they will come in shooting because they expect you to be armed and dangerous.

45

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.

I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.

Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.

OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.[/quote]

Shut up pussy.

Guns are cool.

You want to save a shit load of lives, ban booze or cigarettes. You want to to claim you’re saving lives while really taking a basic right of man- ban guns.

I hate this argument. Makes me feel so Republican. But what guy really thinks that guns aren’t just fucking cool?

46

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Most gun owners have hunting weapons that fire one shot at a time, would be next to impossible to hide in public and require a high level of accuracy.

And I have stated that I don’t see a problem with the controlled sale and ownership of this type of weapon.[/quote]

That is good. However, I believe gun control is larger than just guns. It gives the state too much control in general. Which is terrible, regardless of how the power is introduced.

I have an assault rifle. I love it. I use it on my families ranch and at the gun range. It’s fun. I enjoy shooting like you enjoy golf, basketball, baseball or what have you. (All things I enjoy too). My gun, unless someone breaks in to my condo, will never kill a soul.

I have a handgun for self defense. It will be used if I’m ever attacked, but not until then unless for practice or fun.

Criminals do not and will not have my weapons. Even if they did, guns really don’t kill people. People are murderers. Guns are tools. Efficient yes, but just tools none the less.

Any ways, I love my pistol and assault rifle. Come and take them.

47

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Most gun owners have hunting weapons that fire one shot at a time, would be next to impossible to hide in public and require a high level of accuracy.

And I have stated that I don’t see a problem with the controlled sale and ownership of this type of weapon.[/quote]

Also, we have the controlled sale and ownership of weapons. Most require extensive background checks and go to non criminals. Criminals do get their hands on guns, but would do so regardless.

48

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

[/quote]

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.

I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.

Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.

OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.

Shut up pussy.

Guns are cool.

You want to save a shit load of lives, ban booze or cigarettes. You want to to claim you’re saving lives while really taking a basic right of man- ban guns.

I hate this argument. Makes me feel so Republican. But what guy really thinks that guns aren’t just fucking cool?[/quote]

Yeah. He should really be pushing to ban left hooks. wtf.

50

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Just because you choose what you think is the best action for yourself doesn’t give your or anyone (especially some hypocritical politician protected by the SS with who know what weaponry) to decide how I should protect me and mine.

Are you happy that that argument also applies to the criminals that you feel the need to protect yourself from?

Does this not lead to an arms race? And if it does, who is more likely to fire first? Previously someone robbing your house would carry a baseball bat and threaten you. Now they will come in shooting because they expect you to be armed and dangerous.[/quote]

And yet violent crimes went down in every US state re-permitting concealed carrying.

And, after the UK practically banned guns their crime rate went up.

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

[/quote]

What? Didn’t we just go back and forth in the combat forum over how ineffective you think guns are? And how only uncivilized people defend themselves with guns while the civilized world uses boxing jabs?

You self contradict quite a bit across threads. I think you are the troll.

52

I have never argued that guns are not cool (in the right setting) I used to shoot in competitions when I was a kid as part of Tetrathlon. I was pretty good as well.

I wish more people would be honest and state, I want a big gun because I think they are cool. Same reason I want a big truck.

53

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Just because you choose what you think is the best action for yourself doesn’t give your or anyone (especially some hypocritical politician protected by the SS with who know what weaponry) to decide how I should protect me and mine.

Are you happy that that argument also applies to the criminals that you feel the need to protect yourself from?

Does this not lead to an arms race? And if it does, who is more likely to fire first? Previously someone robbing your house would carry a baseball bat and threaten you. Now they will come in shooting because they expect you to be armed and dangerous.

And yet violent crimes went down in every US state re-permitting concealed carrying.

And, after the UK practically banned guns their crime rate went up.

[/quote]

The crime rate in the UK was already trending up, and the guns that were banned affected sports shooters and hunters, they had no effect on the type of guns that are used in crime.

54

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

[/quote]

What would I do, walk around with a gun in my hand, waving it at anyone who looked scary? Would that decrease my risk of getting hurt?

55

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Just because you choose what you think is the best action for yourself doesn’t give your or anyone (especially some hypocritical politician protected by the SS with who know what weaponry) to decide how I should protect me and mine.

Are you happy that that argument also applies to the criminals that you feel the need to protect yourself from?

Does this not lead to an arms race? And if it does, who is more likely to fire first? Previously someone robbing your house would carry a baseball bat and threaten you. Now they will come in shooting because they expect you to be armed and dangerous.

And yet violent crimes went down in every US state re-permitting concealed carrying.

And, after the UK practically banned guns their crime rate went up.

The crime rate in the UK was already trending up, and the guns that were banned affected sports shooters and hunters, they had no effect on the type of guns that are used in crime.[/quote]

You mean the guns held by criminals who do not give a shit about gun bans?

Do you know what percentage of registered guns in the US is used to commit crimes?

56

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

What would I do, walk around with a gun in my hand, waving it at anyone who looked scary? Would that decrease my risk of getting hurt?[/quote]

No, but if nobody knew who had a gun, that would lower your risk.

57

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

What would I do, walk around with a gun in my hand, waving it at anyone who looked scary? Would that decrease my risk of getting hurt?[/quote]

No. You would keep it in your holster, unless you knew you were in a dangerous area, in which case you would keep it discreetly in your hand.

When some one started approaching you, you would make it visible. If they meant no ill will they would stop coming towards you.

If they meant harm they would still probably stop. If they keep coming, aim at them and say it again. If they still keep coming, shoot them. Most likely they are coming to attack you and are either high or crazy at that point. And the law, at least in Texas, would agree.

It isn’t 100% fool proof, but it is definitely more effective than begging or running.

“Please, pretty please, have a change of heart! Don’t mug me! You are better than that! Please stop.”

Fuck that. Stop bitch or I’ll kill you. Much better. Authoritative and effective.

Fortunately, I’ve never faced that situation and I hope I never do. But, I do keep a handgun in my glove box and i do holster it when I’m in seedy parts of town, especially after dark.

58

If guns are outlawed only the outlaws and the government will have guns. Is is not obvious why this is an inherently dangerous situation to bring about?

59

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

What would I do, walk around with a gun in my hand, waving it at anyone who looked scary? Would that decrease my risk of getting hurt?[/quote]

No that would be considered brandishing. It’s a crime and a poor tactic. You would simply avoid trouble, but if someone tries to kill you then you have the option of using lethal force to defend yourself.

If you are in one of the more free states the criminals don’t know if you have a concealed weapon or not and tend to avoid thos who don’t behave like prey.

Having the option to defend yourself is a basic human right and good common sense. Banning the means to excercise that right is simple fear on the part of those who seek the ban.

60

So do you really believe that gun ownership protects you in any way from the government? How did that work out for the guys in Waco?