Gun Control - Page 40

belch · 2013-03-08, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Ok whatever. I'll just ignore this thread from now on. You talk to people who don't know much like they should. Perhaps he is off his rocker with what he knows. I thought that was what the topic of this thread and the nature of a debate forum was supposed to accomplish, debate.

How the heck do I know if either are saying the truth, without facts that can verified? I never understood gun culture in the US. Was trying to get an understanding by people talking here but it's just a bunch of mud throwing here so I'll just leave.... If people are just going to attack each other and not really debate what they think and why they think it I don't care to listen to it.

your call...I am still not seeing where I have thrown mud at anyone. If you want to understand Srebrenica as it relates to the discussion, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_genocide

I have to admit, I am confused as to why you don't see Figment's name calling as an attack. Are you from his neighborhood or something?

Crator · 2013-03-08, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by belch

your call...I am still not seeing where I have thrown mud at anyone. If you want to understand Srebrenica as it relates to the discussion, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_genocide

I have to admit, I am confused as to why you don't see Figment's name calling as an attack. Are you from his neighborhood or something?

See you keep throwing things up here like this but I don't understand how it relates to the situation in the US. And how does it relate to the crime rates stats that have been posted?

belch · 2013-03-08, 05:44 PM

Thats a good question Crator. But I didn't bring Yugoslavia into this...Figment did. I pointed out where he was incorrect in his depiction of the major contributing factors, as like you've said...most people don't know and just assume he knows what he is talking about. It doesn't help that his main defense seems to be impuning the character of anyone that questions him. I am certain that is where the confusion lies.

As for his statements about less violent crime in Europe...and his claims that I have misinterpreted him...hardly the truth. I am guilty of laughing at him...if that is considered an attack. But seriously...this guy thinks high speed karate moves are a plausible defense against would be assailants. Countering any of his assertions garners slander and walls of text that lead nowhere. Honestly, the only reason I do post in this thread to to ensure someone is questioning the ridiculous statements he makes.

Crator · 2013-03-08, 06:40 PM

IDK belch, I just saw the gun violence crime rate stats that were posted. So those are false?

Also, I forgot to answer your question about where I'm from... I grew up in southern Louisiana and have been living in Texas since 2001...

Figment · 2013-03-08, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

Translation: Be a victim, self defense of life, liberty and property isn't worth your time.

Translation?:

"macho macho man
I want to be a macho man"

You basically asked me if I saw too much Hollywood earlier, seen too much Seagal, Willis, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, you name it, yourself?

Sorry, but you can't say any of that, when you stand your ground and handing even the lowest common denominator of criminals guns, increases the chance of you becoming a victim that is dead or heavily injured.

It is very easy to say you would stand up, not knowing your mental circumstance of the moment or if you'll be in time to pull a gun, if you get caught off guard, if your gun gets taken and used against you, if your trusted friends or family runs off with it, or otherwise are caught with your langs down. Thing is, people who stand up only to fall down, are fools.

Only go to war if you already won: those who seek war and only then seek to win it risk to lose everything. A wise lesson from Sun-Tzu. Bassically what I'm saying is, standing up by default is foolish. That doesn't mean you shouldn't ever try, but you certainly should know when it is not in your best interest to fight. If a gun makes you feel overconfident then you should be worried.

The most precious thing in life is life, as you can't ever get it back or replace it once lost. To hell with property.

Thing is, even if I'm not willing to fight for that property, I'm also not willing to make it easy for potential criminals to get into a position where they might force me to give it up.

The latter aspect is something that a lot of gun enthusiasts do not want to consider: prevention of criminal empowerment out of fear it may restrict themselves in some way, shape or form.

belch · 2013-03-08, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

IDK belch, I just saw the gun violence crime rate stats that were posted. So those are false?

Also, I forgot to answer your question about where I'm from... I grew up in southern Louisiana and have been living in Texas since 2001...

Which stats? The ones that anti-gun or anti-gun grab advocates have posted? Because, as you have may have noticed, you can skew the results to back up either side of the argument.

As for asking about your location...well, I only asked as you asked if several of us were from bad areas. Does where we live have any relevance on this discussion, or was it a way to say you think we are uneducated? Clearly, we are not. It's not like I am quoting Sun Tzu and trying to relate that quote to a close quarters confrontation...

I mean seriously? Has Figment ever been in a gun fight? Why in the hell is he trying to talk about it as if her knows? I have been in more than a few, and I can tell you, he is quite full of shit. Were I to find out he was being assigned to my squad, I would do my best to send him to the finance guys or something....where he could safely argue statistics with people that aren't busy with the work of actually chasing down bad guys. This doesn't make him a bad person...it means he is not suited for that line of work. And really, as such, should have very little to say about it. Instead, he is spouting Sun Tzu. And in a condescending tone no less.

You need to spend less time advocating for him...he seems to do just fine advocating himself as some basement dwelling strategist. Spend more time informing yourself and understanding the issue without the glasses that someone handed you.

Where exactly in Texas are you from btw?

Mietz · 2013-03-08, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by SolLeks

I first have to say, If a gunfight starts, unless it is point blank, there is the chance a person will miss their target. criminals are not known to be marksmen. I do not fantasize about gun fights, in fact I would be happiest if I never get into one in my life, however if it was to happen I would rather have a gun to at least try to defend myself with.

I need to clarify.
When I said "fantasy" I do not mean this in a way of infantelizing your position or that you fantasize about gunfights, I mean it per the definition of "imagining an improbable scenario".

Back on topic.
If what your first bolded part is true how does the second bolded part follow?
How likely is a scenario that can be thought of where you can actually be of assistance (consistently, for the benefit of the situation)?
The question isn't "can I imagine a scenario", everyone of us can. The question is: how likely is that scenario and does it necessitate the current policy.

I am not aware of any hard data or studies (by studies I mean, peer-reviewed scientific studies) confirming that it is.

It's a bit like me asking myself if I can imagine a scenario where my swords/knives would become useful if sharp.
And yes, I absolutely can, multiple.
Nevertheless these scenarios are so unlikely that the danger the objects present by just existing in my household would far outweigh the benefit of "being prepared" for such a scenario.

This is the same approach when a policy-maker (government) considers these issues. Does the benefit of civilian gun-ownership outweigh the threat presented by the same? This has to be carefully weighed and evaluated with facts, because lives are at stake (-both- the good and the bad guys.)

Originally Posted by SolLeks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

back to my original point, I am not talking about gun fights, but you can defend yourself from most attackers and robberies just by showing a gun, criminals don't want to get shot, and if they know that the general populace has weapons, they are much less likely to commit the crime.

I understand there is anecdotal evidence that can be cited, that is however not an argument sufficient for a discussion about policy.
It's as ineffective as pointing your fingers inside your jacket pocket and saying you have a gun unless -factually- proven otherwise.

The second part of your statement similarly does not follow, as the proliferation or non-proliferation of firearms is not tied in any way statistically to crime-rates (as mentioned several times in this thread by the "pro gun" side).

Of course this argument goes both ways as well and I am absolutely aware of that. One could say "whats the harm of owning firearms if crime-rates can be similarly high without guns"?
However, as I said before, solely amount of crime committed is irrelevant in making policy.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...w=1280&bih=856

on a side note, do you expect a 110 pound woman to be able to defender herself agenced a rapist without a weapon? pepper spray only works so well, a gun works the best.

I expect everyone to be so unlikely to be raped as to not need to defend themselves. Wouldn't you agree that this is the preferred state?

This goal can not be achieved by gun proliferation, so that argument is essentially moot.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

There will never be enough police to stop this 100% of the time. These type of riots have happened all over the world, and they will happen. natural disasters are another thing that will always happen in our world and there is not enough manpower in the government to fix it instantly 100% of the time.

Also, most of that is not vigilantism, most if that was self defense. these guys where not going around with their guns and rounding people up, they where using their guns to defend them selves and their property. The LA riots in fact had several fatalities where a mob of people just killed another person, If the people who where killed had guns, they would probably be alive today (this happend in 92). I agree that vigilantism is not a good thing, and that is not what I am advocating.

Again, nothing will ever be stopped 100% of the time, even if you give everyone a gun for free at birth and train them to use it as soon as they can hold and pull the trigger.
You simply have the wrong answer to the right problem.

It is a cost-benefit analysis combined with likelihood of occurrence as well as potential for harm.

On an aside, you were talking about a breakdown in the rule of law, let me cite you:

2. Riots happen, Natural disasters happen, shit happens and the area you live in may become without rule of law.

Your property is protected by the constitution and an implicit agreement regulated by the state (i.e. government). The second this stops existing, then we have vigilantism ("taking the law into your own hands").

Of course in the case of the example you provided with the picture the rule of law did not actually break down, only law -enforcement- was insufficient for a time.
We need to be careful when distinguishing between situations when laws exist but are not enforced (temporarily) and situations where laws do not exist at all.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

and so is the theory that banning a lot of these guns will make less crime happen.
Then why do the current gun ban proposals in the US government have nothing to do with automatic weapons?

That is an issue with your media and politics framing the problem wrong and I'm not really qualified to discuss the complete and total issue of gun control in your country in detail.

I only responded to a selection of your arguments that I found to be particularily problematic, nothing more nothing less. I am not pushing an agenda, I'm quite comfortable where I live and your country has its own populace to govern it.

Originally Posted by SolLeks

Well, most of the ranges I go to do not rent weapons, and I do like to shoot on top of collecting the weapons. I also collect military ordinance and none of that stuff is live so I do see your point to an extent but unlike swords, it is hard to practice marksmanship with deactivated weapons.

Of course, thats why we have facilities (gun ranges) that off-loaded the need of owning the firearm that you want to practice your marksmanship with.
We can even request guns to be made available at the range, within reason, I don't think I could request a Minigun, but we have a WW2 howitzer we fire for special occasions.

This setup is very economical as well. A full auto M16 would cost in the range of ~20.000USD an AR-15 ~1.400? A yearly subscription to the range is ~200 and I'm not in any way restricted what gun to shoot. I of course still own my "replica" M16 but that one cost me I think 300 Deutschmark (~200USD) in the early 90s.

Of course I never train with my swords, that would irreparably damage them. Not to mention trying to find someone that actually could spar with me at all without killing himself.

Way back when I started collecting medieval swords I tended to buy them "combat ready". Theres essentially 4 types you can get from a blacksmith: replica (total crud, flimsy), authentic blunt (higher quality, decoration), combat blunt (spring steel for sparring, good durability), combat ready (same, just authentically sharpened).
My friend managed to cut his shoulder 2cm deep through his coat with my Zweihänder (4kg) because he wanted to pose like Guts from Berserk with his blade over the shoulder (physics and leverage apply).
It's when I decided to get all future weapons blunt (i've blunted the Zweihänder as well)

Helwyr · 2013-03-08, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by belch

Instead, he is spouting Sun Tzu. And in a condescending tone no less.

I had to log out so I could read that. What is it with the online gaming communities and these idiots quoting Sun Tzu? It's as though they think quoting The Art of War suddenly installs them with more credibility.

Regarding stats, I completely agree no stats are going to end this debate. Way back in my university days I stopped telling people I studied Political Science after taking Quantitative Political Research Methods (stats), and just said Politics. I don't care what they say there's no real science involved. It's how we get nonsense like human created "global warming" shenanigans. (whoops did I just say that... apologies everybody you're likely to get several pages of gibberish on the weather by our local Sun Tzu scholar now).

Figment · 2013-03-08, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

IDK belch, I just saw the gun violence crime rate stats that were posted. So those are false?

I was looking at them some more and noticed the Florida stats are statewide, while Chicago and Washington DC are big cities. Which means Florida stats are covering a far wider area with a far lower population density.

Looked up Miami: three times as high violence and crime rates than the US mean. Ratings in the order of 24 murdered per 100.000 compared to the 6/100.000 the chart would have you believe.

Doesn't seem like as much of a fair chart comparison now, does it?

belch · 2013-03-08, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I had to log out so I could read that. What is it with the online gaming communities and these idiots quoting Sun Tzu? It's as though they think quoting The Art of War suddenly installs them with more credibility.

Regarding stats, I completely agree no stats are going to end this debate. Way back in my university days I stopped telling people I studied Political Science after taking Quantitative Political Research Methods (stats), and just said Politics. I don't care what they say there's no real science involved. It's how we get nonsense like human created "global warming" shenanigans. (whoops did I just say that... apologies everybody you're likely to get several pages of gibberish on the weather by our local Sun Tzu scholar now).

Yeah, it borders hilarity and downright embarrassing. But, again, when he actually talked about high speed karate moves to disarm an assailant with a knife, I realized that he had zero knowledge of self defense, much less anything in the realm of use of force in the real world. Which is fine, but...

What a silly little man.

Figment · 2013-03-08, 09:39 PM

@Helwyr/belch: more ad hominems? Surprise surprise.

Interesting how he said "condescending tone" in relation to the SunTzu quote. Because if you read it, it isn't. The bit before was a retort in kind of someone else using an extremely condescending tone - but hey - that's okay, since it was adressed at your opposition. Nifty hypocrisy as usual.

belch · 2013-03-08, 09:45 PM

@ Figment: that's right, little buddy...when you say we are fools for being willing to defend ourselves, you get called on it. Ad Hominem my ass...more like you can't explain why you were compelled to quote Sun Tzu

Shouldn't you be practising Karate moves or something?