View Full Version : gunbortion time
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 11:43
OK guns this time.
Any thoughts on this story...
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Toting_gun_at_soccer_costs_mom_her_permit_09-24-2008.html
As she says a gun needs to be accessible at all times, she shoudn't have to juggle three babies to be able go get the gun when she needs to be able to get it quick, it needs one in the spout at all times just to be safer in case that dreaded event arrives and you need a gun.
She does have some valid points, her husband is a parole officer so there is a chance that a criminal could get upset at her husband and decide to target his family or his home.
pevergreen
10-20-2009, 11:47
You don't waste any time at all do you.
:laugh4:
HoreTore
10-20-2009, 12:16
Did we just miss out on an abortion thread?
EDIT: Allright, I'll make this one a true gunbortion thread: If she just aborted her three kids, she wouldn't need a gun anymore!
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 12:25
Well that's just silly. To truly protect your children with a gun you need to make them carry one. That way when you need to defend them, one's always handy. :yes:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-20-2009, 13:12
Well, at least this is a self-stated gun/gun control thread. Play nice and En Garde!
Pannonian
10-20-2009, 13:19
Well that's just silly. To truly protect your children with a gun you need to make them carry one. That way when you need to defend them, one's always handy. :yes:
Just pick up a kid and point them at the attacker. Are there any laws against carrying concealed children?
The government should take her kids away because they're infringing on her constitutional right to carry a gun.
I wonder why the other parents got worried, I thought everybody in the USA loved guns and handled them like teddy bears.
ICantSpellDawg
10-20-2009, 14:39
The government should take her kids away because they're infringing on her constitutional right to carry a gun.
I wonder why the other parents got worried, I thought everybody in the USA loved guns and handled them like teddy bears.
You thought right. Open carry makes you a target. CCW all the way.
A gun carrying mum at a soccer match in Lebanon?
A deadly combination for any referee or opposing coach if I have ever seen one. :sweatdrop:
CountArach
10-20-2009, 15:07
A gun carrying mum at a soccer match in Lebanon?
Best game of Cluedo ever.
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 15:37
The government should take her kids away because they're infringing on her constitutional right to carry a gun.
the ban on her was revoked because her displaying "lack of judgement" was insufficient grounds to take away her permit.
I wonder why the other parents got worried
Well she was suing for loss of business as the way she was portrayed got other parents worried and they stopped using her for child care.
It seems that some parents had an issue about leaving their children in the care of somone like her.
Strike For The South
10-20-2009, 15:38
I know what Tribesman is doing here and I'm going to let it play out.
This is fixin to get HILARIOUS.
So, she had a legally obtained permit for the concealed carry of firearms. She was carrying a firearm, legally, but some people didn't like it because they're afraid of guns and so the sheriff revokes her permit. According to the sheriff, making use of the permit he issued is sufficient to make her of a questionable character. :dizzy2:
That's a total load of BS. PA is a "shall issue" state, which means that it's not up to the sheriff's discretion. If she passes her background check, he must issue her permit. She should fight this- the law is on her side. :yes:
Kadagar_AV
10-20-2009, 16:29
:dizzy2: <- sums up what I had to say...
I know what Tribesman is doing here and I'm going to let it play out.
This is fixin to get HILARIOUS.
:yes:
More guns + more tequila + more Jesus will make the world a better place.
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 17:13
Just pick up a kid and point them at the attacker. Are there any laws against carrying concealed children?
I can see a lot of women breaking this law. How do we know they just aren't fat? :shrug:
Reverend Joe
10-20-2009, 17:15
So, she had a legally obtained permit for the concealed carry of firearms. She was carrying a firearm, legally, but some people didn't like it because they're afraid of guns and so the sheriff revokes her permit. According to the sheriff, making use of the permit he issued is sufficient to make her of a questionable character. :dizzy2:
That's a total load of BS. PA is a "shall issue" state, which means that it's not up to the sheriff's discretion. If she passes her background check, he must issue her permit. She should fight this- the law is on her side. :yes:
I think the "questionable character" point comes from the fact that she carried it to a soccer match. I'm all for gun rights, but there's something very viscerally repulsive to me about mixing guns and children. I mean, even if the person is perfectly safe, it still makes other people extremely uncomfortable, especially parents who don't know her.
I don't like guns, but this woman seems to have been following the laws there. If you don't like it then change the laws, don't punish someone for obeying the law.
Pannonian
10-20-2009, 17:46
More guns + more tequila + more Jesus will make the world a better place.
God loves a gun totin', bible quotin' tequila guzzler.
God loves a gun totin', bible quotin' tequila guzzler.
Damn straight. I regularly pray to Maria-Margarita on the Rocks.
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 18:05
This is fixin to get HILARIOUS.
Behave yourself Strike.
She should fight this- the law is on her side. :yes:
she did fight it . she won that fight because having questionable judgement is not grounds for revoking the permit
I wonder why the other parents got worried, I thought everybody in the USA loved guns and handled them like teddy bears.
Soccer moms....not the brightest demographic, and definetely not the most pleasent to be around.
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 18:10
This article looks odd.
What are the open carry laws in PA? She wasn't carrying it concealed so that really isn't an issue.
Was this soccer game close to a school. What are the PA state laws concerning firearms in or near public buildings, schools, and school-related events.
If the law only bars issuance of a CCDW permit, and she already has one, how is this law used to revoke her permit?
Why do so many fat, gun-carrying hicks have to ruin our reputation?
Crazed Rabbit
10-20-2009, 18:22
OK guns this time.
Any thoughts on this story...
http://www.timesleader.com/news/Toting_gun_at_soccer_costs_mom_her_permit_09-24-2008.html
As she says a gun needs to be accessible at all times, she shoudn't have to juggle three babies to be able go get the gun when she needs to be able to get it quick, it needs one in the spout at all times just to be safer in case that dreaded event arrives and you need a gun.
She does have some valid points, her husband is a parole officer so there is a chance that a criminal could get upset at her husband and decide to target his family or his home.
Wow, you have absolutely no class.
CR
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 18:27
Wow, you have absolutely no class.
CR
His closing sentence make sense and is hardly crude.
The whole situation is silly and deserves some criticism.
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 18:29
Wow, you have absolutely no class.
What's new?
Any thoughts on the story though CR?
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 19:38
What's new?
You're supposed to say: "What's up, Rabbit?"
Crazed Rabbit
10-20-2009, 19:54
The woman in the article was killed by her husband a couple weeks ago. (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/meleanie_hain.html)
Meleanie Hain, the pistol-carrying Lebanon mom who received national attention for taking a loaded gun to her daughter’s soccer game, was talking to a friend via a Web camera when her husband, Scott, shot her to death before killing himself, Lebanon police said today.
CR
A gun carrying mum at a soccer match in Lebanon?
A deadly combination for any referee or opposing coach if I have ever seen one. :sweatdrop:Best game of Cluedo ever.
It appears that the guilty culprit was...Colonel Mustard Gas!
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 20:03
Well done Rabbit, so what about the topic eh?
errrrr.......Any thoughts on the story though CR?
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 20:10
The woman in the article was killed by her husband a couple weeks ago. (http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/meleanie_hain.html)
CR
Ahh, so this is what Strike was talking about.
Good show old bean! :toff:
Kadagar_AV
10-20-2009, 20:18
Maybe if there would have been even more guns around she would have been safe.
Vladimir
10-20-2009, 20:33
Maybe if there would have been even more guns around she would have been safe.
If the children were armed, LIKE I SAID, this incident could have been avoided.
Maybe if there would have been even more guns around she would have been safe.
She was killed with a state-issued firearm though. Defending herself with a privately-owned gun would have been rebellion, and would have brought down the wrath of the ATF's jack-booted thugs. :yes:
HoreTore
10-20-2009, 22:07
If the children were armed, LIKE I SAID, this incident could have been avoided.
Yes....
Because it would've been extremely hard for the husband to, I don't know.... Kill her while she was sleeping...?
There's only one solution to a problem like this: Don't marry a psycho.
Oh, and what about them honour killings? I hear that's something only foreigners do :dizzy2:
Tribesman
10-20-2009, 22:26
So given the circumstances of her unfortunate demise would it be reasonable to suggest that the big show she made about carrying a gun was really the equivalent of a fella with a small penis driving a big sports car.
So given the circumstances of her unfortunate demise would it be reasonable to suggest that the big show she made about carrying a gun was really the equivalent of a fella with a small penis driving a big sports car.No. :dizzy2:
Kadagar_AV
10-21-2009, 00:08
I don't think there is much more to be said on this topic.
If you are pro-guns, you have some valid claims.
If you are against guns, you have some valid claims.
HOWEVER, this topic just shows a domestic tragedy.
With or without guns, I think the end result would have been the same.
So let's get our intellectual minds to work on deeper topics, shall we?
Rhyfelwyr
10-21-2009, 00:39
I don't think there is much more to be said on this topic.
If you are pro-guns, you have some valid claims.
If you are against guns, you have some valid claims.
HOWEVER, this topic just shows a domestic tragedy.
With or without guns, I think the end result would have been the same.
So let's get our intellectual minds to work on deeper topics, shall we?
I agree with this *shock*
Looking at individual cases like this isn't going to help solve anything when it gets to the bigger issue.
Although it was quite a smart little move by Tribesey. :juggle2:
Centurion1
10-21-2009, 01:10
well i think that you cant say anything since the woman was murdered and woud feel like a total creep making cracks about her or her beliefs (even though i agree with her) so i think, for once Kadavgar is absolutely right. this is simply a tragedy.
But what about the point that a gun makes you safer?
I've brought the point up before that a bullet-proof west makes you safer than a gun, a gun just allows you to make the other person less safe, but it's useless when (s)he strikes by surprise.
Which is why police and military use both.
And concerning tragedies, some people consider a dead thief a tragedy as well, others congratulate everyone who shot one dead, then call Tribesman a meanie for using the death of a woman for a topic. :dizzy2:
It's about whether you regard life in general as important or start picking. I can tell you who also started picking...
Hitler! :laugh4:
Tribesman
10-21-2009, 08:01
No. :dizzy2:
So you don't think the fact that she made a big show of carrying a gun and publicly insisted that she had to carry a gun at all times and that it had to be ready to pull out at every instant because of the constant danger was just a pile of crap she displayed in public for appearance sake?
You know what Tribes? You are a very sick person, and you have a disgustingly dark sense of humour.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I don't think there is much more to be said on this topic.
If you are pro-guns, you have some valid claims.
If you are against guns, you have some valid claims.
But there is so much more.
What if you are neither pro or against guns?
Was the law suit frivolous or just dishonest?
Should guns be allowed at home but not outside?
Should people who are members of a family be banned from holding firearms or should being a family mean that firearms are compulsory.
But just to feed those who want the dark humour.
As a matter of choice, was the husband correct in selecting the 9mm followed by the shotgun to resolve a domestic dispute or could he have come up with a better combination of firearms?
Tribesman
10-21-2009, 08:10
But what about the point that a gun makes you safer?
Exactly.
She claimed that the gun was needed at all times to make her safe.
She was killed when she didn't have a gun.
That makes her claim about keeping herself safe with a gun false.
It could however prove her claim that she was vulnerable without her gun.
Unless of course....
She was shot at close range in the back of the head with apparently no time to react even if she had had her gun.
In which case that makes her other claim false too.
Vladimir
10-21-2009, 12:55
I agree with this *shock*
Looking at individual cases like this isn't going to help solve anything when it gets to the bigger issue.
Although it was quite a smart little move by Tribesey. :juggle2:
Ditto.
Strike For The South
10-21-2009, 15:10
This was one the front page of cnn for like 3 days. I'm surprised no one knew.
I can only assume this means I'm the smartest taverner.
Major Robert Dump
10-21-2009, 15:35
If dealing in absolutes, then yes her claim that a gun made her safer is false. If not dealing in absolutes then the claim is generally true.
She did not have her gun on her, but given the description of the crime she would not have had time to use it. Considering the the fact that women are more likely to be killed by someone they know than by a stranger, and considering that she took a visible loaded gun (concealed would have sufficed, really) to something as harmless as a kiddie soccer game and then made a stink when she was called on it......well, it really was all grandstanding on her part.
There was no need for that gun at the game. But apparently whatever was going on at home put her in need of a gun, so when she was in the most danger she did not have it on her. Maybe she was cybering with someone she met on the NRA message boards after her 15 minutes of fame
I really feel sorry for the kid.
Very ironic death, though.
Tribesman
10-21-2009, 17:50
Very ironic death, though.
Which makes it a good subject for the topic
If dealing in absolutes, then yes her claim that a gun made her safer is false...
Sure, but absolutes are absolutely worthless for practical purposes.
Crazed Rabbit
10-21-2009, 20:39
Exactly.
She claimed that the gun was needed at all times to make her safe.
She was killed when she didn't have a gun.
That makes her claim about keeping herself safe with a gun false.
It could however prove her claim that she was vulnerable without her gun.
Unless of course....
She was shot at close range in the back of the head with apparently no time to react even if she had had her gun.
In which case that makes her other claim false too.
What a profoundly insightful post!
I suppose I'll just rip the airbag out of any cars I own, because they won't be useful in all circumstances.
:rolleyes:
This was one the front page of cnn for like 3 days. I'm surprised no one knew.
Eh, why do you think I reacted the way I did? I knew about it, though I don't watch (or read online) CNN. I expect a lot of the people here don't.
CR
"Blaming guns for murders is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell for being fat"
Ser Clegane
10-21-2009, 20:51
"Blaming guns for murders is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell for being fat"
No matter what my or your position on gun control might be - this argument (and the many variations of it that are frequently quoted) is a bit of a strawman.
Nobody is "blaming guns for murder". The argument for more gun control rather tends to be about ease of access to guns for people who might not be the most responsible owners or the increased likelihood of guns being present in tense situations when gun control is less strict.
Samurai Waki
10-21-2009, 21:02
I always loved the argument that "if they take away our guns, we'll just buy em' on the black market" My thought on this was "how many gun runners do you know?" I live in a State that has one of the highest illegal gun import rates in the US, and I can't say that I've ever met one.
:rolleyes:
Crazed Rabbit
10-21-2009, 21:06
No matter what my or your position on gun control might be - this argument (and the many variations of it that are frequently quoted) is a bit of a strawman.
Nobody is "blaming guns for murder". The argument for more gun control rather tends to be about ease of access to guns for people who might not be the most responsible owners or the increased likelihood of guns being present in tense situations when gun control is less strict.
In the US, there are several prominent anti-gun organizations that do blame guns for murder.
I always loved the argument that "if they take away our guns, we'll just buy em' on the black market"
Never heard of that one. And you may not have met gun runners - but you haven't looked, since you don't want to find any, right?
CR
Ser Clegane
10-21-2009, 21:13
In the US, there are several prominent anti-gun organizations that do blame guns for murder.
That's interesting -how does the argument go? Is it simply "the pure existance of a gun turns a person into a murderer"?
I cannot imagine that this might be a very common argument - but then I have to admit that vocal fringe groups with very "unique" views and arguments sometimes seem to get an awful lot of airtime in the US letting them dominate debates and pushing policies.
Tribesman
10-21-2009, 21:16
Blaming guns for murders is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell for being fat
Reading problems again:yes:
I suppose I'll just rip the airbag out of any cars I own, because they won't be useful in all circumstances.
You should, if you had made an issue that you would never need an airbag in a car.
Since this woman made an issue that she needed a gun at all times your post has zero relevance.
In the US, there are several prominent anti-gun organizations that do blame guns for murder.
Do they really?:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
How much is a pound of Stilton today?
I always loved the argument that "if they take away our guns, we'll just buy em' on the black market" My thought on this was "how many gun runners do you know?" I live in a State that has one of the highest illegal gun import rates in the US, and I can't say that I've ever met one.
:rolleyes:
Well, I've long suspected that the Backroom has been fully infiltrated by organized crime. :laugh4:
Crazed Rabbit
10-21-2009, 22:36
That's interesting -how does the argument go? Is it simply "the pure existance of a gun turns a person into a murderer"?
I cannot imagine that this might be a very common argument - but then I have to admit that vocal fringe groups with very "unique" views and arguments sometimes seem to get an awful lot of airtime in the US letting them dominate debates and pushing policies.
They don't say guns turn people into murderers, but that guns are to be blamed for murders, that if guns weren't so prevalent, we wouldn't have so many murders. They blame murders on the tool used, not the person who kills the other person. They trumpet the danger or lethality of whatever gun was used. If a nutcase kills a couple people at a mall (where guns aren't allowed) with a pump action shotgun, they (the brady campaign in this example) ratchet up the hysteria (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1789410/posts) level around that simple firearm;
"Shotguns fire an extremely lethal large caliber round that delivers either a cloud of bullets (shot) or a single large slug."
The Violence Policy Center is a leader in it:
http://www.vpc.org/index2.htm#assweap
A primary stimulus for the 1994 law was the severe threat that assault weapons pose to law enforcement officers. Police and other law enforcement personnel were some of the first victims of the assault weapon trend that emerged in the 1980s. For example, in October 1984, a San Jose, California, police officer was gunned down with an UZI carbine. In a high-profile shootout in April 1986, two agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were killed by robbery suspects wielding a Ruger Mini-14 assault rifle. Five other agents were wounded in the gun battle. As high-capacity assault weapons became more commonplace, police routinely complained that they were being outgunned by suspects. As a result, major law enforcement organizations supported passage of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.
In 1995, the first full year in which the ban was implemented, police continued to be victims of assault weapons. Approximately one in 10 of the 74 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 1995 was slain with a banned assault weapon.4
The Brady campaign to prevent gun violence (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/crime) has better PR and is much more subtle:
SOLUTION: Without stronger, sensible gun laws banning guns], thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die and be injured needlessly each year. The Brady Campaign fights for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family, and your community.
They have their share of outrageous 'facts' though:
Q. What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic, military-style assault weapons?
A. Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.
...
[Combat features of "assault weapons"]
A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
And finally from the brady bunch:
There is a gaping hole in our nation’s firearm laws that terrorists can exploit. Federal authorities can't stop sales of guns – including military-style assault weapons – by federally licensed gun dealers to known or suspected terrorists [That is, people not convicted of any crime. A person can't be much of a known terrorist if they aren't convicted of any felonies] because of gaps in current law. Our definitions of those prohibited from purchasing guns from federally licensed dealers do no include those known as suspected terrorists.
Since this woman made an issue that she needed a gun at all times your post has zero relevance.
Riiiiiiiiiight. And if somebody had insisted they needed an airbag for protection in a car crash, then died in a way were an airbag wouldn't have helped, what normal person would scoff the claim that airbags make a car safer? :rolleyes:
CR
Evil_Maniac From Mars
10-21-2009, 23:00
I always loved the argument that "if they take away our guns, we'll just buy em' on the black market" My thought on this was "how many gun runners do you know?" I live in a State that has one of the highest illegal gun import rates in the US, and I can't say that I've ever met one.
:rolleyes:
Myself and most of the people I know have never met a drug dealer doing business, but that doesn't mean we couldn't.
You should, if you had made an issue that you would never need an airbag in a car. Since this woman made an issue that she needed a gun at all times your post has zero relevance.
Your straw man needs more straw.
"Blaming guns for murders is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell for being fat"
That's a terrible analogy. If you really want to use that analogy, you'd have to use triggers, since they are the mechanism by which the gun is fired, as with spoons being the mechanism by which Rosie O'Donnell is fat. A more appropriate analogy would be ""Blaming guns for murders is like blaming fast food for Rush Limbaugh being fat""
ajaxfetish
10-22-2009, 01:07
That's a terrible analogy. If you really want to use that analogy, you'd have to use triggers, since they are the mechanism by which the gun is fired, as with spoons being the mechanism by which Rosie O'Donnell is fat. A more appropriate analogy would be ""Blaming guns for murders is like blaming fast food for Rush Limbaugh being fat""
Hmm . . . I wonder actually. You're absolutely right that it's the food and not the spoon causing the fatness; the spoon just delivers the fast food to the person's mouth. On the other hand, it's really not the gun which does the killing: it's the bullet. The gun just delivers the bullet to the person's body. So in terms of an analogy between two tools which can be used to subject a person to a harmful item, it actually seems quite apt. If we're talking about people being pistol-whipped to death, of course, then you're completely correct, as the gun itself would be the harmful thing, rather than some other thing contained within it.
Ajax
Tribesman
10-22-2009, 08:17
Riiiiiiiiiight. And if somebody had insisted they needed an airbag for protection in a car crash, then died in a way were an airbag wouldn't have helped, what normal person would scoff the claim that airbags make a car safer?
It would have to be someone insisting that the airbag would have always given protection.
What you miss Rabbit is that she made her claims in absolute terms.
Your straw man needs more straw.
The strawmen are Rabbits and Zains.
They have had to introduce them because the nature of the claims made by his woman have left them with very little room to make a counter arguement.
It would have to be someone insisting that the airbag would have always given protection.It always does give protection. Just not protection against all threats. Sort of like carrying a gun. :idea2:
Keep trying though.... you may get a bite yet... ~:handball:
https://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5444/800pxtrollingdrawing.jpg
Ariovistus Maximus
10-27-2009, 22:19
Exactly.
She claimed that the gun was needed at all times to make her safe.
She was killed when she didn't have a gun.
That makes her claim about keeping herself safe with a gun false.
It could however prove her claim that she was vulnerable without her gun.
Unless of course....
She was shot at close range in the back of the head with apparently no time to react even if she had had her gun.
In which case that makes her other claim false too.
So you've shown that having a gun does not make you invincible.
And you've thusly proven that one woman made some rather foolish predictions, which did not come true.
Поздравления
And, actually, she would still be right, in a sense.
Did she say that she needed a gun at all times to make her safe, or that a gun would make her safe at all times?
Because the first way was still correct. She needed a gun; she just didn't have one.
It is ironic though. There was even a big debate about this on the TWC.
Centurion1
10-28-2009, 01:48
what if she had that gun out and ready tribes and she had managed to defend herself. Chances of an unarmed woman beating off a physchopathic murderer (ill be kind) 10%
Chances of a woman with a gun fighting off attacker probably more like 40% (factor in surprise)
yeah the death is ironic but it is still a human life.
and guns dont kill people, people do and often not with guns. Should the english outlaw knives because they are developing a "knife culture" like america has developed a "gun culture"
Ariovistus Maximus
10-28-2009, 01:57
Should the english outlaw knives because they are developing a "knife culture" like america has developed a "gun culture"
They might have already...
Out of curiosity, are bows legal? Because they'd be the next thing I'd use if I had no gun.
Vladimir
10-28-2009, 17:04
They might have already...
Out of curiosity, are bows legal? Because they'd be the next thing I'd use if I had no gun.
Is Turkey a bow culture then? :thinking:
Ariovistus Maximus
10-29-2009, 00:19
Is Turkey a bow culture then? :thinking:
Forgive me, but I haven't the slightest idea how Turkey has to do with anything in this discussion.
Vladimir
10-29-2009, 11:48
Forgive me, but I haven't the slightest idea how Turkey has to do with anything in this discussion.
Because this is the Backroom. :whip:
Sarmatian
10-29-2009, 13:08
and guns dont kill people, people do
That's true but I think guns help, you know. If you just stand there and shout BANG, it won't kill too many people.
rory_20_uk
10-29-2009, 13:32
and guns dont kill people, people do and often not with guns. Should the english outlaw knives because they are developing a "knife culture" like america has developed a "gun culture"
By this logic, let's legalise landmines, C4 plus detonators, machine guns and so on. You can chuck C4 on a fire and it's OK, only dangerous with a detanator; all are harmless without human intervention.
Yet there is the issue that someone with a knife / sword / bladed weapon is going to be hard pressed to kill anywhere as near as many as these other things allow. C4 allows killing of possibly hundreds at a distance, a machine gun would certainly allow a pretty nasty slaughter as well. Knives often lead to one or two dying. Not great - but better.
Random arches are much better way of preventing deaths, as well as searching men and women for guns and knives (here police can't search women unless they're women. So if you get the woman to carry the drugs, knives and guns odds are they won't be found).
More important than both is of course the society - hence why Swizerland is drowning in guns but not gun related shootings, and Jamaica has (apparently) one of the lowest ratios of guns in the Carribbean, but manages to have the most shootings.
~:smoking:
Ariovistus Maximus
10-29-2009, 17:18
By this logic, let's legalise landmines, C4 plus detonators, machine guns and so on. You can chuck C4 on a fire and it's OK, only dangerous with a detanator; all are harmless without human intervention.
Actually, that is slippery slope fallacy.
I take the point that guns make crime easier, but
a) Taking them away (thus making crime less convenient) will not transform any criminal's soul,
b) Guns have very positive effects (shown in the US) in the hands of civilians, whereas planting claymores near your front door at night is... rediculous.
whereas planting claymores near your front door at night is... rediculous.
Why? Everybody who commits the horrible act of walking around on my property has willfully given up their right to live. It's perfectly normal for me to try and protect my property against all those criminal intruders, stray dogs, government agents, etc.
Why? Everybody who commits the horrible act of walking around on my property has willfully given up their right to live. It's perfectly normal for me to try and protect my property against all those criminal intruders, stray dogs, government agents, etc.
Sure, that's what guns are for.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-29-2009, 18:46
Why? Everybody who commits the horrible act of walking around on my property has willfully given up their right to live. It's perfectly normal for me to try and protect my property against all those criminal intruders, stray dogs, government agents, etc.
It's expected that you will have posted warnings in advance according to law and custom.
b) Guns have very positive effects (shown in the US) in the hands of civilians, whereas planting claymores near your front door at night is... rediculous.
I would argue that guns have a very negative effect in the US. They are actually positive in countries such as Switzerland where they don't go around shooting eachother and killing school kids.
Simple fact is, if the access to guns were removed, those people couldn't get the guns, thus, those school kids would still be alive today.
As for the argument about highly paid hit men or organised crime getting weapons, this is where the police and other people still have guns to combat that, but at least it stops Joe and Bill killing each other.
I would argue that guns have a very negative effect in the US. They are actually positive in countries such as Switzerland where they don't go around shooting eachother and killing school kids.
Simple fact is, if the access to guns were removed, those people couldn't get the guns, thus, those school kids would still be alive today.
As for the argument about highly paid hit men or organised crime getting weapons, this is where the police and other people still have guns to combat that, but at least it stops Joe and Bill killing each other.
So basically, you advocate taking away the people's right based on the fact that a tiny minority of people abuses this right. Well, in that case lets ban television, because you never know when some nutcase might interpret a TV program as a call to action, go out and start stabbing people left and right.
Ariovistus Maximus
10-29-2009, 20:03
I would argue that guns have a very negative effect in the US.
On what basis?
Often people look at the news for a few moments and determine that guns are bad in the US.
It never occurs to them to look at what you might call the 'net effect' which is quite good.
Guns are used to make an aweful lot of trouble, but they are also used in many positive ways.
They are actually positive in countries such as Switzerland where they don't go around shooting each other and killing school kids.
Precisely. :2thumbsup:
So you have just acknowledged that guns do not cause crime, or even encourage crime.
Thus, the high murder rate in the US is due to many other factors.
Simple fact is, if the access to guns were removed, those people couldn't get the guns, thus, those school kids would still be alive today.
And a bunch of other people would be dead today, but aparently you've never thought of it that way. Lots of people ignore that.
You say, if all guns were removed from earth, those people would be alive. Well, first of all, a lot of people would still be dead because a good percentage of US homicides are gang-related. Secondly, you are entirely ignoring that demographic that will be entirely helpless without guns.
1.5 million cases of defensive gun use occur each year in the United States. Naturally, the fact that a civilian had to intervene to stop the crime says something about the nature of the crime; it wasn't just a speeding ticket or something. It was probably home invasion, burglary, or assault.
Finally, before you tell me that the NCVS survey was much lower, I will tell you a little bit about that.
I get the number 1.5 million from the average of FOURTEEN different surveys (including the NCVS survey) conducted by news agencies, polling agencies, criminologists, and the US government at the state and federal levels. It's reliable.
As to little kids running around shooting things, that can be prevented quite easily by training.
For instance, I recall the story of a 6-yr-old boy who took a gun from his home to school and shot another little girl.
What kind of parents let that happen?
In short, training will take care of the problem.
As for the argument about highly paid hit men or organised crime getting weapons, this is where the police and other people still have guns to combat that, but at least it stops Joe and Bill killing each other.
It's a popular argument that civilians with guns will cause shootouts over the smallest disagreement.
Where have you actually seen this effect in operation? A few psychos lose it upon occasion; that's it.
The facts and statistics of the debate give you no basis for paranoia against Joe and Bill.
Civilians with guns have very low accidental shooting rates. It's actually lower than law enforcement, but of course that's because the police are in much more volotile situations.
So, I'm hardly implying that civilians have better records than LEO's, but that statistic does tell me that Joe and Bill aren't walking liabilities to public safety like you might think.
Thanks for your time, hope we can have a profitable discussion.
~AM
Sure, that's what guns are for.
No, it's what claymores are for.
It's expected that you will have posted warnings in advance according to law and custom.
That goes for guns, too, I hope.
No, it's what claymores are for.
If you insist. Just don't blow up the postman.
Front towards enemy. And make sure you don't take out the rosebush with the backblast.
A Very Super Market
10-29-2009, 23:50
If someone was suffering from mental illness, and scratched their skin off with their fingernails, wouldn't it make more sense to cut them and treat them rather than treat them while their flesh is still being ripped off?
LittleGrizzly
10-30-2009, 02:27
So basically, you advocate taking away the people's right based on the fact that a tiny minority of people abuses this right.
Sorry but who doesn't ?
Nukes have only poissibly been abused once by a previous owner (possibly as there are some good arguments for it) but i now people dislike this one so ill move onto others...
I very much doubt anything but a tiny minority would abuse thier right to own C4, but you are willing to take away thier rights because a tiny minority would abuse them
Rocket Launchers... again people's rights, tiny minority would abuse...
Modern day military jet fighters... same points
Could it be that people draw a line somewhere and decide that even though not many people abuse thier 'right' to own all these 'killing tools' that some are too effective to allow out there... expect maybe the most insane libertarian/anarchist....
Ariovistus Maximus
10-30-2009, 05:15
...except that guns aren't nuclear weapons, armored vehicles, or military aircraft. :inquisitive:
Vladimir
10-30-2009, 17:22
If you insist. Just don't blow up the postman.
Kukri! Noooooooo!
But no, seriously. Remember the backblast radius. You can't directly attach it to your door or you'll splinter it. That's why I want a nice, long driveway with a clear line of fire.
rory_20_uk
11-05-2009, 11:13
...except that guns aren't nuclear weapons, armored vehicles, or military aircraft. :inquisitive:
Armoured vehicles are legal - at least they are in the UK, as are tanks. Of course, they can't have working guns.
Between most of these you are making an arbitrary cut off between a semi automatic rifle and a full automatic one or a machine gun.
To state that as a gun was used to prevent a crime indicates that the use of a gun was required isn't the best logic. Using a gun is easier, safer for the person with the gun and requires less exertion.
~:smoking:
Ariovistus Maximus
11-05-2009, 16:01
Armoured vehicles are legal - at least they are in the UK, as are tanks. Of course, they can't have working guns.
Well, yes. So are machine guns and military aircraft. :beam:
A few million dollars, a pilot's license, and you can buy a spitfire - without the guns, of course.
Between most of these you are making an arbitrary cut off between a semi automatic rifle and a full automatic one or a machine gun.
It's not arbitrary at all. They are entirely different. Unless, of course, you look only at cosmetics.
You are, I trust, aware of the tremendous difference between firing one round per function of the trigger and firing an unlimited number of rounds per function of the trigger?
If not, I suggest that you heavily restrict the use of automobiles, because Formula-1 cars can go dangerously fast and have inadequate protection.
Get my drift?
To state that as a gun was used to prevent a crime indicates that the use of a gun was required isn't the best logic.
Correct; not the point I'm making.
Using a gun is easier, safer for the person with the gun and requires less exertion.
That's the point I make. :2thumbsup: Sounds good.
rory_20_uk
11-06-2009, 17:42
... If not, I suggest that you heavily restrict the use of automobiles, because Formula-1 cars can go dangerously fast and have inadequate protection.
Forumula 1 cars have exceptionally good protection - hence why the drivers walk away after a crash at 150+mph; why when a supercar hits a ecobox the supercar driver is fine and the ecobox driver is dead.
Kit cars do not have to meet any standards regarding safety, and are also road legal...
~:smoking:
Ariovistus Maximus
11-06-2009, 19:16
Arggh, ruined by a bad analogy. :shame:
:beam:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.