A modest proposal for gun control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
I'm not disagreeing that they don't want resistance and like weakness, but your average criminal is a petty thief that tries to get away with opportunistic burglary. Some of them don't have the guts to take things into their own hands and make the situation easier for a successful crime, so they wait for the right opportunities to arise. They usually aren't your "terrorizing violent predator" type, that is a completely different breed of criminal.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 05:18 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 05:05 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing that they don't want resistance and like weakness, but your average criminal is a petty thief that tries to get away with opportunistic burglary. Some of them don't have the guts to take things into their own hands and make the situation easier for a successful crime, so they wait for the right opportunities to arise. They usually aren't your "terrorizing violent predator" type, that is a completely different breed of criminal.
Exactly, as in, they are opportunistic when finding targets, otherwise they'll get shot/killed. Predators can only exist when there are artificially weak targets. Would you at least agree with me that a burglar is less likely to burglarize your property if it's not known if you have a gun or not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 05:25 PM
Re: RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 01:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  because stray bullets dont do any damage.

Its your house and you are now in control. A firearm could be at least an equalizer. If you like to be subject to someone else's will, that's fine.


(26-12-2012 01:26 PM)frankiej Wrote:  If I were in a house with my family and I had a gun, I wouldn't be picking it up and firing at an intruder... I would be sticking my hands up and telling them to take what they want and leave. Starting a fire fight in my home is not what I would be doing to try and protect my family. If there were zombies breaking in, then it is entirely different... Tongue

Anyway, open firing on someone you believe to be an intruder without thinking is how you end up shooting someone you know... I've read plenty of news stories in the past of people killing family members because they thought it was someone breaking in.

If Americans are so paranoid about people breaking in and murdering everyone, then they should booby trap their house. Tongue

So you tell them to take what they want, and they take your life. Good job.

No one is starting a firefight. Rarely do intruders ever stand their ground or fire back. Almost every advantage is to the home owner. Noted self defense and lethal force legal expert Massad Ayoob has the "rule of the ensconced defender" that states when a defending forced is implaced in a structure, it will take a force ratio of 9(offense) to 1("defense") to be on equal standing. Thats why SWAT and other Tactical teams use 8 members assault teams for a typical house entry at the least. There are examples of this though history like The Alamo and Masada.

Yes, shooting at just someone in your house is reckless and criminal. Thats why you use one of these to ID a possible threat. At 230 in the morning, getting 80-300 lumens blasting someone's face will completely piss in their Cheerios. That natural night vision your eyes have is now gone and will take them a 1/2 hour to get back. Add in lights that strobe your stacking the cards even higher.

[Image: p_surefire_G2L_BK_Side.jpg]

You are correct in the sense that home defense means doing your best to make sure you never have to use a firearm in the 1st place. Un-bumpable/unpickable doors locks and deadbolts, well lit exterior free of crazy shrubbery(THE SHRUBBERY!) secure windows, in a good area, etc etc etc is of huge importance. Alarm systems are awesome as well. But non of these things guarantee you anything, neither does simply having a firearm. Its all part of a larger mindset and way of life.

I really can't sympothize in anyway the idea that you would let anyone do as they please inside your home to you and your family. Do you not value your innate right to life? Someone terrorizing honest people inside their own home one of the most contrary acts one could do in a modern society. Why be subservient to this?

If someone is inside my home unwanted, they have now become the beta and I pity them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
Quote:Exactly, as in, they are opportunistic when finding targets, otherwise they'll get shot/killed. Predators can only exist when there are artificially weak targets. Would you at least agree with me that a burglar is less likely to burglarize your property if it's not known if you have a gun or not?

Burglarize is such a bizarre word... burgled is where it's at. Wink

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankiej's post
26-12-2012, 05:31 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 05:18 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  
(26-12-2012 05:05 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing that they don't want resistance and like weakness, but your average criminal is a petty thief that tries to get away with opportunistic burglary. Some of them don't have the guts to take things into their own hands and make the situation easier for a successful crime, so they wait for the right opportunities to arise. They usually aren't your "terrorizing violent predator" type, that is a completely different breed of criminal.
Exactly, as in, they are opportunistic when finding targets, otherwise they'll get shot/killed. Predators can only exist when there are artificially weak targets. Would you at least agree with me that a burglar is less likely to burglarize your property if it's not known if you have a gun or not?
No, but I will agree that it is less likely if the burglar KNOWS you own a gun. How are they going to know you have a gun unless they rob the place? Of course, that is the criminal's biggest fear: does my victim own a gun or not, so they will make assumptions about who is less likely to own a gun.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 05:56 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 05:31 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(26-12-2012 05:18 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Exactly, as in, they are opportunistic when finding targets, otherwise they'll get shot/killed. Predators can only exist when there are artificially weak targets. Would you at least agree with me that a burglar is less likely to burglarize your property if it's not known if you have a gun or not?
No, but I will agree that it is less likely if the burglar KNOWS you own a gun. How are they going to know you have a gun unless they rob the place? Of course, that is the criminal's biggest fear: does my victim own a gun or not, so they will make assumptions about who is less likely to own a gun.
So are you for or against gun control?, I'm not sure what you are arguing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 06:22 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 05:01 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  
(26-12-2012 04:57 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Actually, most criminals are both stupid and petty opportunists. Even a lot of those that aren't petty opportunists are stupid.
Sensing weakness is what they are good at, statistics show this- as very few burglaries occur when people are at home in U.S, yet half of burglaries in U.K (Where people are mostly disarmed) are done when people are at home.

Assuming that your reference to statistics is correct, this is just a better example as to why firearms are not useful, nor should they be used. If U.S citizens are not home, how is their firearm going to help? It won't, it will get stolen. Yet, in the U.K, both homicide rates, and gun homicide rates are both drastically lower compared to the U.S.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 06:39 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 06:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(26-12-2012 05:01 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Sensing weakness is what they are good at, statistics show this- as very few burglaries occur when people are at home in U.S, yet half of burglaries in U.K (Where people are mostly disarmed) are done when people are at home.

Assuming that your reference to statistics is correct, this is just a better example as to why firearms are not useful, nor should they be used. If U.S citizens are not home, how is their firearm going to help? It won't, it will get stolen. Yet, in the U.K, both homicide rates, and gun homicide rates are both drastically lower compared to the U.S.
You don't get it- the burglar in U.S only goes into houses to begin with when he knows it's safe/nobody is in- since the price of being wrong is being shot. The price of being wrong in U.K generally is someone with a baseball bat/golf club, so they don't care so much if someone is in or not, since they know the people won't be armed.

Homicide rates actually increased in U.K when guns were disarmed.

Also keep in mind, if you are for gun prohibition, you are not anti-gun, since you are using guns in the hands of the government to take away guns from citizens- you just want people using them in a blue costume. At that point you have two opposite moral rules for people based on someone's allegiance to the state. And that's not good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2012, 08:23 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 06:39 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  You don't get it- the burglar in U.S only goes into houses to begin with when he knows it's safe/nobody is in- since the price of being wrong is being shot. The price of being wrong in U.K generally is someone with a baseball bat/golf club, so they don't care so much if someone is in or not, since they know the people won't be armed.

I get it entirely, and firearms do not help the situation in the slightest.

(26-12-2012 06:39 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Homicide rates actually increased in U.K when guns were disarmed.

No, homicide rates decreased after the 1997 personal firearms restrictions.

(26-12-2012 06:39 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Also keep in mind, if you are for gun prohibition, you are not anti-gun, since you are using guns in the hands of the government to take away guns from citizens- you just want people using them in a blue costume. At that point you have two opposite moral rules for people based on someone's allegiance to the state. And that's not good.

I am not for gun prohibition. I am for strong firearm restrictions, much like Australia or Germany.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Logica Humano's post
26-12-2012, 08:24 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(26-12-2012 06:39 PM)FZUMedia Wrote:  Homicide rates actually increased in U.K when guns were disarmed.

Got proof?

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: