Kung Fu vs Muscle
-
It is worth discussing and I see your points however I still believe that mine made sense... I am not sure why you are quoting where I said guns are for killing.... Yes guns are for killing....You do not point a gun of any kind at something you do not intend to die when you pull the trigger. If I pull a gun on someone in the first place it is because I am going to shoot them I would not pull it out for no reason. The reason I carry the gun I carry is because if I get into a situation to actually use it I want the person to be dead because I am not going to be using it unless that person is trying to kill me or my family. Slapping is obviously much different than shooting what I am saying is that slapping someone for that would be about as stupid as shooting someone for the saying something... Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Yes guns are for killing....You do not point a gun of any kind at something you do not intend to die when you pull the trigger.If I pull a gun on someone in the first place it is because I am going to shoot them I would not pull it out for no reason.The reason I carry the gun I carry is because if I get into a situation to actually use it I want the person to be dead because I am not going to be using it unless that person is trying to kill me or my family.
I'm very glad to see that you have a responsible attitude around guns then! What gets to me is seeing comments where people say things like "who cares about martial arts? They can't kick me if I already blew their brains out with my Magnum" or "if someone slapped me, he'd have been double-tapped in the head before he could land the second blow", etc. In fact there were one or two comments like that much earlier in the thread (not from yourself, iirc) which really pissed me off. It sounds kind of psychopathic - shooting someone is not an appropriate response in a fistfight.
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Slapping is obviously much different than shooting what I am saying is that slapping someone for that would be about as stupid as shooting someone for the saying something.
Sure, it would be stupid, but hardly "as stupid" as shooting someone! If you slap someone, they'll be ok (or pissed off and will hit back)... if you shoot someone, they're dead, gone forever and you go to jail for life! In terms of stupidity, slapping someone (or punching a cat, or urinating through your neighbour's letterbox) is almost nothing compared to shooting someone (unless it was absolutely necessary) :-D
-
Maybe not easier but it is more likely... http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police. While this is a little off topic. Soldiers don't always get to use the most effective ways of killing bad guys... When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies. Humble Programmer
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Maybe not easier but it is more likely...http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police.
Good link. Yeah, I'd have expected that deaths by car were higher than firearm deaths, although I'm surprised by how high the number of firearm deaths are: "7. Firearm Assault Lifetime Odds: 1 in 314" - that's pretty shocking. Would like to see more detailed stats on the firearm deaths (i.e. how many are "shot in self defense by home owners" vs how many kids accidentally killed each other, how many drunk, abusive husbands picked up a gun in a sudden fit of rage and killed their family, or vice-versa).
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies.
Haven't heard of those tri-edged blades, sounds interesting. However I'm not convinced about the "rules of engagement" thing (not sure why you brought it up, but let's go there!) - just a year or so ago I was reading about the sniper "baiting" story, where soldiers placed "bomb-making equipment" which could be something as innocuous as a piece of wire or some electronic component on the street (which I would almost certainly pick up out of curiosity), and instantly blow away anyone who happened to pass by and pick something up. Then there was an airstrike on a wedding, killing scores of children and innocents. Then a helicopter "engaged" a couple of Reuters journalists (one or two of the drivers in the video were carrying AK-47s, but they weren't firing at anyone), and then fired at civilians who came to give medical aid to them, badly wounding a young boy. Some of these murders were deemed unlawful and resulted in some sort of criminal charges, but many were ignored and continue to be. There may be rules of engagement which prohibit things, but it seems that they don't have as much effect as they should. Of course, the real (or at least, worse) bad guys are even worse, having no problems bombing a busy market on purpose where the military mess up airstrikes through incompetence (or simply not caring very much about "collateral damage" in foreign lands), but that doesn't make it ok.
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me...Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt.
I never said it won't happen to me, just that the odds are so small that simply having guns around me increases the danger to me and everyone near me. The "average danger", the statistical probability of someone being injured or killed, obviously increases as soon as a gun enters my possession, and massively increases if I carry it on the street or in my car. Personally, I consider the total risk of needless injury/killing to myself and others by having a gun outweighs the risk that "it" will ever happen to me. We obviously disagree there, and that's fair enough - you probably have done more research into the actual statistics of gun accidents/etc and are making an informed trade-off. :)
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything.
Because honest people do stupid things. They get drunk, go to the pub, find someone's comment offensive and walk out to their car to take the gun from their glovebox before returning to shoot the insulter in the back of the head (as my friend's uncle did, many years ago). And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year - sure some people will find another way to do it, but at least some will be deterred if guns were out of the picture), my other answer to that is, yes only outlaws (and cops) will have them, but much less outlaws will have them than now! Acquiring and holding guns would be much more difficult, and (in a country like this one) an arrestable offence in most cases.
Sorry I'm late to the discussion but I had to respond to this...
destynova wrote:
And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000): (1995, Before the handgun ban) * 5278 – US * 8179 – Germany * 6316 – France * 7206 – England & Wales (2001, After the handgun ban) * 4161 – US * 7736 – Germany * 6941 – France * 9927 – England and Wales Note that the crime rate in the US fell, while the rate for London rose. Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates. Yet right over the border in VA, there are very few restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying guns, there are very low crime rates. Why is this? Because criminals know that the only way any law-abiding victim can possess a firearm is ... disassembled. Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse. I truly hope that you will educate yourself about how bad these gun laws are - it's people who hold your views that have cause them to happen, and it's the rest of us paying the price - in property, injury, and life. If that's not enough, please ponder this: If laws can restrict the lawless, why not just make murder illegal?
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
-
Sorry I'm late to the discussion but I had to respond to this...
destynova wrote:
And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000): (1995, Before the handgun ban) * 5278 – US * 8179 – Germany * 6316 – France * 7206 – England & Wales (2001, After the handgun ban) * 4161 – US * 7736 – Germany * 6941 – France * 9927 – England and Wales Note that the crime rate in the US fell, while the rate for London rose. Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates. Yet right over the border in VA, there are very few restrictions on law-abiding citizens carrying guns, there are very low crime rates. Why is this? Because criminals know that the only way any law-abiding victim can possess a firearm is ... disassembled. Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse. I truly hope that you will educate yourself about how bad these gun laws are - it's people who hold your views that have cause them to happen, and it's the rest of us paying the price - in property, injury, and life. If that's not enough, please ponder this: If laws can restrict the lawless, why not just make murder illegal?
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
Hired Mind wrote:
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
What is not borne out by facts? I mentioned deaths caused by guns in particular, but you are quoting general crime figures. I never suggested that crime in general would be more or less prevalent due to guns. The crime rate in the US is lower than in the UK, but it still looks like the rate of gun killings is higher in the US. However, the Wikipedia article on gun politics in the UK suggests that gun crime in the UK has doubled (at least) in the last 10 years, even after the handgun ban. This is certainly disturbing, and perhaps linked with the growing violent gang culture in the UK. That said, I don't think it's right to point at a single country's inability to reduce gun crime by introducing tougher legislation and then say that gun legislation does not work. More comparisons with other countries are necessary - I should probably pay attention to my own country (Ireland) where there's much less of a gang problem than in the UK, but there have been a number of violent gun killings between criminal gangs and druglords here recently.
Hired Mind wrote:
Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates.
Ok, but isn't it much easier to get guns into the hands of criminals, even in Washington D.C.? If you can't buy them there (easily), you can just drive to the next state, right? Your point about the low gun crime rate in Canada is well-taken though, I've heard this argument made before and it should be taken more seriously. In fact, I seem to recall a documentary on TV where a guy went from Boston (high gun crime) to Toronto (low gun crime) and tried a front door at random - it was unlocked.
Hired Mind wrote:
Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse.
I will try to pick up that book, it sounds very interesting, especially given that Lott seems to be an actual research scientist, performing well-designed studies rather than cherrypicking facts and skewing sta
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
Maybe not easier but it is more likely...http://dying.about.com/od/causes/tp/oddsdying.htm Also most likely those stats like most others when calculating firearm deaths they are including the people that died by getting shot in self defense by home owners or police.
Good link. Yeah, I'd have expected that deaths by car were higher than firearm deaths, although I'm surprised by how high the number of firearm deaths are: "7. Firearm Assault Lifetime Odds: 1 in 314" - that's pretty shocking. Would like to see more detailed stats on the firearm deaths (i.e. how many are "shot in self defense by home owners" vs how many kids accidentally killed each other, how many drunk, abusive husbands picked up a gun in a sudden fit of rage and killed their family, or vice-versa).
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
When you have a chance go read up on tri edged blades in war along with full metal jacket bullets also the fact that US soldiers have to wait to be engaged before engaging enemies.
Haven't heard of those tri-edged blades, sounds interesting. However I'm not convinced about the "rules of engagement" thing (not sure why you brought it up, but let's go there!) - just a year or so ago I was reading about the sniper "baiting" story, where soldiers placed "bomb-making equipment" which could be something as innocuous as a piece of wire or some electronic component on the street (which I would almost certainly pick up out of curiosity), and instantly blow away anyone who happened to pass by and pick something up. Then there was an airstrike on a wedding, killing scores of children and innocents. Then a helicopter "engaged" a couple of Reuters journalists (one or two of the drivers in the video were carrying AK-47s, but they weren't firing at anyone), and then fired at civilians who came to give medical aid to them, badly wounding a young boy. Some of these murders were deemed unlawful and resulted in some sort of criminal charges, but many were ignored and continue to be. There may be rules of engagement which prohibit things, but it seems that they don't have as much effect as they should. Of course, the real (or at least, worse) bad guys are even worse, having no problems bombing a busy market on purpose where the military mess up airstrikes through incompetence (or simply not caring very much about "collateral damage" in foreign lands), but that doesn't make it ok.
I too was surprised at the high number of deaths by firearm was however probably many self defense people often do not hear about self defense shooting because it does not fall into the liberal media agenda. Seems that they are supposed to follow ROE but many times the commander changes the ROE to suite them. Humble Programmer
-
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
I boggles my mind that someone would run around thinking that this will never happen to me...Personally IF that situation ever happens I want to be able to protect my family. It happens to people therefore you and your family are not exempt.
I never said it won't happen to me, just that the odds are so small that simply having guns around me increases the danger to me and everyone near me. The "average danger", the statistical probability of someone being injured or killed, obviously increases as soon as a gun enters my possession, and massively increases if I carry it on the street or in my car. Personally, I consider the total risk of needless injury/killing to myself and others by having a gun outweighs the risk that "it" will ever happen to me. We obviously disagree there, and that's fair enough - you probably have done more research into the actual statistics of gun accidents/etc and are making an informed trade-off. :)
programmervb.netc++ wrote:
People think that outlawing guns makes sense it is insane criminals DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!!!!!!! Why would a law that disarms honest people help anything.
Because honest people do stupid things. They get drunk, go to the pub, find someone's comment offensive and walk out to their car to take the gun from their glovebox before returning to shoot the insulter in the back of the head (as my friend's uncle did, many years ago). And yes, I've heard the "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them" argument before. Apart from the fact that "honest" people not having guns would save a huge number of lives (look at how many gun accidents and "just flipped out" killings and suicides there are every year - sure some people will find another way to do it, but at least some will be deterred if guns were out of the picture), my other answer to that is, yes only outlaws (and cops) will have them, but much less outlaws will have them than now! Acquiring and holding guns would be much more difficult, and (in a country like this one) an arrestable offence in most cases.
There are many dumb people that carry guns that have no business many carry them because they like to show them off and act tough. I think a person should have to have a psch eval before getting a carry permit. My oldest son keeps telling me that if he ever carries a gun for protection it will be one of these..... http://www.specialistgunshop.com/Desert%20Eagle%20Titanium.jpg[^] and I try to get him to understand that a flashy gun is dumb just a small effective one that you won't be showing around it is for protection not show. The bad thing about it is alot of people much older than him don't have any better sense about guns but I am against any kind of law that would take a gun out of my hands because I am a responsible owner.
Humble Programmer
-
Hired Mind wrote:
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
What is not borne out by facts? I mentioned deaths caused by guns in particular, but you are quoting general crime figures. I never suggested that crime in general would be more or less prevalent due to guns. The crime rate in the US is lower than in the UK, but it still looks like the rate of gun killings is higher in the US. However, the Wikipedia article on gun politics in the UK suggests that gun crime in the UK has doubled (at least) in the last 10 years, even after the handgun ban. This is certainly disturbing, and perhaps linked with the growing violent gang culture in the UK. That said, I don't think it's right to point at a single country's inability to reduce gun crime by introducing tougher legislation and then say that gun legislation does not work. More comparisons with other countries are necessary - I should probably pay attention to my own country (Ireland) where there's much less of a gang problem than in the UK, but there have been a number of violent gun killings between criminal gangs and druglords here recently.
Hired Mind wrote:
Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and also the highest violent crime rates.
Ok, but isn't it much easier to get guns into the hands of criminals, even in Washington D.C.? If you can't buy them there (easily), you can just drive to the next state, right? Your point about the low gun crime rate in Canada is well-taken though, I've heard this argument made before and it should be taken more seriously. In fact, I seem to recall a documentary on TV where a guy went from Boston (high gun crime) to Toronto (low gun crime) and tried a front door at random - it was unlocked.
Hired Mind wrote:
Look for John Lott's book, More Guns Less Crime. He started out trying to prove the efficacy of gun control laws with scholarly work. But everything he found in his research pointed him in the opposite direction. The fact is, gun laws make things worse.
I will try to pick up that book, it sounds very interesting, especially given that Lott seems to be an actual research scientist, performing well-designed studies rather than cherrypicking facts and skewing sta
destynova wrote:
This is not borne out by facts. Interpol crime statistics (rate per 100,000): What is not borne out by facts? I mentioned deaths caused by guns in particular, but you are quoting general crime figures.
True enough - perhaps I inferred more than you said. But is it even fair to count suicides and "just flipped out" killings? Suicidal people are going to have easier access to a rope and a rafter, or sleeping pills, than a gun. And there aren't enough of these heavily-publicized "just flipped out" killings to even measure, when you put it in the context of 300 million people. The fact is, that the US has higher murder rates primarily because we are an entirely different culture than the UK. We are a country of dozens (hundreds?) of different cultures: races, creeds, national origins, all living together. It's amazing that the US is not one continuous never-ending war.
destynova wrote:
Your point about the low gun crime rate in Canada is well-taken though
Actually it was Virginia. In Washington D.C. it is impossible for non-police to legally own a firearm unless it is disassembled at all times, and the murder rate is the highest in the nation. In Virginia you can easily buy a firearm and keep it in your home, fully loaded, legally. Yet in VA, there is very low crime.
destynova wrote:
If that's not enough, please ponder this: If laws can restrict the lawless, why not just make murder illegal? Then let me turn that question around slightly and ask you to ponder it too: What if murder was not illegal? Would there be more or fewer murders? Big Grin
Hard to say, really. Just because murder were legal, does not mean the human imperative to go on living would shut down. In that situation, people would arm themselves even more, and would balance out - to what extent, one cannot know. But the analogy is fundamentally flawed: there is no social utility in murder. There is in firearms. Various sources I've seen on the internet say that between 764K and 2 million people defended themselves with guns in 1995 (the low number was the L.A. Times). The more strict the gun control laws, the larger the chunk of those people will die. Guns in the hands of the law-abiding prevent murders, they don't cause them.
Before .NET 4.0, object Universe = NULL;
