Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2015, 06:51 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  What is compulsory suicide?

Sounds like a terrific idea for most politicians.

It would solve some issues Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
30-04-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:14 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  We still have the guns.

And will tomorrow.

Not if I legislate that you can't have them Smile Isn't democracy *beautiful* Smile Or I guess you could do the cold dead hands thing.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
30-04-2015, 08:26 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 06:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:14 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  We still have the guns.

And will tomorrow.

Not if I legislate that you can't have them Smile Isn't democracy *beautiful* Smile Or I guess you could do the cold dead hands thing.

That would be an amazing feat on your part considering that you don't live in the US.

As to democracy, it still has that pesky constitution that gets in the way. It would be quite a task to remove the 2A. I'm sure some folks would feel compelled to vote from the rooftops.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 08:59 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 08:26 AM)KUSA Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Not if I legislate that you can't have them Smile Isn't democracy *beautiful* Smile Or I guess you could do the cold dead hands thing.

That would be an amazing feat on your part considering that you don't live in the US.

As to democracy, it still has that pesky constitution that gets in the way. It would be quite a task to remove the 2A. I'm sure some folks would feel compelled to vote from the rooftops.

This is the kind of "argument" that displays a rather absurd notion, that you're going to exercise your use of firearms on the police and military (who are U.S. citizens too) to protect your guns.

Also, an amendment to the constitution would do the job.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 08:26 AM)KUSA Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 06:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  Not if I legislate that you can't have them Smile Isn't democracy *beautiful* Smile Or I guess you could do the cold dead hands thing.

That would be an amazing feat on your part considering that you don't live in the US.

Dammit. Nothing gets past you Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 10:08 AM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 08:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 08:26 AM)KUSA Wrote:  That would be an amazing feat on your part considering that you don't live in the US.

As to democracy, it still has that pesky constitution that gets in the way. It would be quite a task to remove the 2A. I'm sure some folks would feel compelled to vote from the rooftops.

This is the kind of "argument" that displays a rather absurd notion, that you're going to exercise your use of firearms on the police and military (who are U.S. citizens too) to protect your guns.

Also, an amendment to the constitution would do the job.

I never said that I would shoot anyone. You read what you want in things don't you.

As for amending the constitution, many have salivated over removing the 2A but nobody has come close to doing it. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
The LA riots of 1992 changed my attitude towards gun ownership. Up until that time, I never owned a firearm. It wasn't that I was anti-gun. I just never gave it any thought, and owning a gun never crossed my mind. Then the riots hit. My wife and I were living in an area where the riots were expanding towards. TV had 24/7 helicopter views of live events where buildings were being set afire, looting, shooting, and general mayhem was occurring. There were areas where the LAPD were ordered to withdraw because they were outnumbered and outgunned. They showed armed Korean store owners on the rooftops of their stores, protecting their businesses. The National Guard was deployed after about the 2nd or 3rd day of the rioting. (ironically, without any ammo)

For the first time in my life, I felt completely vulnerable, unable to protect my wife, myself, or our home. I vowed never again to be in that position. This might be nothing more than anecdotal hearsay for some. But for me, it's as real as this keyboard I'm typing on, and no amount of philosophical word games or feel-good platitudes will change that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBear's post
30-04-2015, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 10:16 AM by yakherder.)
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Holy shit I want to keep up with this conversation, but I don't have time to read a novel. Besides, after briefly skimming over the past couple dozen pages, I get the impression it's basically the same things repeated over and over.

To that end, allow me to repeat a few things over again that I've probably mentioned in this and/or other debates.

• Pepper spray:
Let me start with a few anecdotal personal experiences.

When I was 18, in the Navy, going to school in Pensacola, on wrestling night we'd watch the main event then, all hyped up, would then meet up with the Marines for some friendly competition. We'd spray the shit out of each other with pepper spray just to make it more interesting, and then wrestle... Because fighting without pepper spray in your face is for normal people

Later, as part of a unit that trained in riot control tactics, we had to not only get sprayed at least annually, but had to then run a little gauntlet as part of our pass/fail evaluation. It went something like this.
1. Stand still and get sprayed in the face.
2. Wait a few seconds for it to take effect.
3. Immediately rush to the first part of the evaluation, which involved administering effective blows to a guy all padded up so he doesn't get hurt.
4. Immediately rush to the second part of the evaluation, which involved deflecting blows from someone trying to beat the shit out of us.
5. Immediately rush to the third part of the evaluation, which involved subduing, restraining, and arresting someone.
Every single person in our unit, from seasoned combat vets to the girl who worked in supply, passed this evaluation with ease. Some screamed in pain while they did it, others hardly acknowledged the fact that they'd been sprayed, but not a single one of us was incapacitated or deterred from accomplishing our objective.

I've also gone through similar tests with Canadian law enforcement.

To that end, here's an example situation encountered from time to time in which spray was useful: Inmate Dipshit has been scheduled for deportation, so we approach his cell and order him to stick his hands out the hatch to be cuffed. He responds with something along the lines of "Fuck you I'm not going, and I'll kill the first person who enters my cell to try and get me." We respond by using a fogger (think pepper spray but attached to a tank rather than a can and used for filling a room rather than targeting a single person) to fill his cell. We then go to another room and sit and have crumpets and tea for a few minutes. After we finish our crumpets and tea we return to the cell and repeat the command, adding that in exchange for compliance we'll let him have a shower before we drag his ass to the airport. His response, in contrast to a few minutes ago, is something along the lines of "Ahhhhh, fuuuck, okay okay, I'll cooperate."

From what I understand it is also marginally effective on protesting hippies or drunk old ladies. I suppose if someone is trying to rape you, the pain might distract them enough to cause them to lose their erection. But against a determined attacker who is already set on doing harm to you? No. Pepper spray is completely fucking useless.

• Taser
With a perfect hit, it will cause the muscles to seize up and therefore be debilitating. This perfect hit is dependent on multiple factors, mainly distance. If you are too far, the prongs will spread too much before impact and the charge will be ineffective. If you are too close, the prongs will not spread enough. The charge will still occur, and will hurt like hell, but will not be physically debilitating. A shot that hits too close can still be used for pain compliance, but the kind of hit needed to reliably debilitate an attacker is very difficult to get on an attacker. Again... Hippies and old ladies only. You rely on a taser against a determined attacker, without a lucky hits it's your ass.

• Metazoa Zeke's katana
More effective than both of the above weapons, the obvious limitation being range.

• Gun
Will not always stop an attacker but... It is effective at any range from point blank to whatever the maximum effective range of the ammunition you are using is, and whether or not it stops someone is not based on psychological factors such as the willpower of the target or other considerations such as the amount of drugs or alcohol they've got flowing through their system. If you hit something vital, they're going down.

Nothing works perfectly in every situation. But out of the available options, a handgun is the most rational. Either way, we'd all be wise to accept death as a possible outcome in any given situation.

The main reason for the right to bear arms, however, has nothing to do with personal defense. That's more of an added bonus. I made a thread a while back that basically sums up my opinion on the place violence has in this world:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-is-Golden

Agree or don't agree. But if you don't have the ability to back up your interests with violence, then whether or not your interests are met are dependent on the good will of someone else. That's sure as hell not something I have much faith in. The government, the corporations, the police, the military, and any other people who ultimately hold authority, maintain control of the economy, decide where its surplus is spent, and have the ability to wage war, can only be assumed to look after your interests if you have the leverage to threaten them should the need arise. In that regards, the best use for guns is as a passive deterrent. I have no plan to go to war with my own country, and in fact the way things stand I tend to side more often with the police and the government than I do with the idiot masses who feel they've been wronged and want to lash out and blame someone else for it, all the while doing everything they can to delegate yet more authority to those whom they continue to vilify. Nonetheless, I am one of those crazies who has what people would refer to as military style weapons and a shitload of ammunition, and there is very little any of you can do about that, which is precisely my reason for doing what I do.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like yakherder's post
30-04-2015, 10:14 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:08 AM)KUSA Wrote:  
(30-04-2015 08:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is the kind of "argument" that displays a rather absurd notion, that you're going to exercise your use of firearms on the police and military (who are U.S. citizens too) to protect your guns.

Also, an amendment to the constitution would do the job.

I never said that I would shoot anyone. You read what you want in things don't you.

As for amending the constitution, many have salivated over removing the 2A but nobody has come close to doing it. I doubt it will happen in our lifetime.

So, what do you mean by " I'm sure some folks would feel compelled to vote from the rooftops."

Also, I pointed out that when you say the guns are not going anywhere because of the good ol' 2nd amendment, that ignores the fact that amendments can still be written.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(30-04-2015 10:13 AM)yakherder Wrote:  Holy shit I want to keep up with this conversation, but I don't have time to read a novel. Besides, after briefly skimming over the past couple dozen pages, I get the impression it's basically the same things repeated over and over.

To that end, allow me to repeat a few things over again that I've probably mentioned in this and/or other debates.

• Pepper spray:
Let me start with a few anecdotal personal experiences.

When I was 18, in the Navy, going to school in Pensacola, on wrestling night we'd watch the main event then, all hyped up, would then meet up with the Marines for some friendly competition. We'd spray the shit out of each other with pepper spray just to make it more interesting, and then wrestle... Because fighting without pepper spray in your face is for normal people

Later, as part of a unit that trained in riot control tactics, we had to not only get sprayed at least annually, but had to then run a little gauntlet as part of our pass/fail evaluation. It went something like this.
1. Stand still and get sprayed in the face.
2. Wait a few seconds for it to take effect.
3. Immediately rush to the first part of the evaluation, which involved administering effective blows to a guy all padded up so he doesn't get hurt.
4. Immediately rush to the second part of the evaluation, which involved deflecting blows from someone trying to beat the shit out of us.
5. Immediately rush to the third part of the evaluation, which involved subduing, restraining, and arresting someone.
Every single person in our unit, from seasoned combat vets to the girl who worked in supply, passed this evaluation with ease. Some screamed in pain while they did it, others hardly acknowledged the fact that they'd been sprayed, but not a single one of us was incapacitated or deterred from accomplishing our objective.

I've also gone through similar tests with Canadian law enforcement.

To that end, here's an example situation encountered from time to time in which spray was useful: Inmate Dipshit has been scheduled for deportation, so we approach his cell and order him to stick his hands out the hatch to be cuffed. He responds with something along the lines of "Fuck you I'm not going, and I'll kill the first person who enters my cell to try and get me." We respond by using a fogger (think pepper spray but attached to a tank rather than a can and used for filling a room rather than targeting a single person) to fill his cell. We then go to another room and sit and have crumpets and tea for a few minutes. After we finish our crumpets and tea we return to the cell and repeated the command, adding that in exchange for compliance we'll let him have a shower before we drag his ass to the airport. His response, in contrast to a few minutes ago, is something along the lines of "Ahhhhh, fuuuck, okay okay, I'll cooperate."

From what I understand it is also marginally effective on protesting hippies or drunk old ladies. I suppose if someone is trying to rape you, the pain might distract them enough to cause them to lose their erection. But against a determined attacker who is already set on doing harm to you? No. Pepper spray is completely fucking useless.

• Taser
With a perfect hit, it will cause the muscles to seize up and therefore be debilitating. This perfect hit is dependent on multiple factors, mainly distance. If you are too far, the prongs will spread too much before impact and the charge will be ineffective. If you are too close, the prongs will not spread enough. The charge will still occur, and will hurt like hell, but will not be physically debilitating. A shot that hits too close can still be used for pain compliance, but the kind of hit needed to reliably debilitate an attacker is very difficult to get on an attacker. Again... Hippies and old ladies only. You rely on a taser against a determined attacker, without a lucky hits it's your ass.

• Metazoa Zeke's katana
More effective than both of the above weapons, the obvious limitation being range.

• Gun
Will not always stop an attacker but... It is effective at any range from point blank to whatever the maximum effective range of the ammunition you are using is, and whether or not it stops someone is not based on psychological factors such as the willpower of the target or other considerations such as the amount of drugs or alcohol they've got flowing through their system. If you hit something vital, they're going down.

Nothing works perfectly in every situation. But out of the available options, a handgun is the most rational. Either way, we'd all be wise to accept death as a possible outcome in any given situation.

The main reason for the right to bear arms, however, has nothing to do with personal defense. That's more of an added bonus. I made a thread a while back that basically sums up my opinion on the place violence has in this world:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-is-Golden

Agree or don't agree. But if you don't have the ability to back up your interests with violence, then whether or not your interests are met are dependent on the good will of someone else. That's sure as hell not something I have much faith in. The government, the corporations, the police, the military, and any other people who ultimately hold authority, maintain control of the economy, decide where its surplus is spent, and have the ability to wage war, can only be assumed to look after your interests if you have the leverage to threaten them should the need arise. In that regards, the best use for guns is as a passive deterrent. I have no plan to go to war with my own country, and in fact the way things stand I tend to side more often with the police and the government than I do with the idiot masses who feel they've been wronged and want to lash out and blame someone else for it, all the while doing everything they can to delegate yet more authority to those whom they continue to vilify. Nonetheless, I am one of those crazies who has what people would refer to as military style weapons and a shitload of ammunition, and there is very little any of you can do about that, which is precisely my reason for doing what I do.

I'll just highlight one point:
"Agree or don't agree. But if you don't have the ability to back up your interests with violence, then whether or not your interests are met are dependent on the good will of someone else. That's sure as hell not something I have much faith in. The government, the corporations, the police, the military, and any other people who ultimately hold authority, maintain control of the economy, decide where its surplus is spent, and have the ability to wage war, can only be assumed to look after your interests if you have the leverage to threaten them should the need arise."

Horse. Shit. Freedom of speech. Freedom of information. Freedom of assembly. Violence is not a necessity for being able combat your enemies or defend your rights.

We may be animals, but that does not mean we are required to act like them.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: