29 replies to this topic

[Chyros]

Cryptkeeper, on 7 Nov 2008, 4:24, said:

1. please give me a example as to how not making good on threats would do more harm if the assailant runs what does it matter the goal of stopping or preventing the crime is obtained without death?

Any example in which the assailant doesn't run. For example, if a robber who you're trying to shake off by pulling a firearm suddenly attacks you, or worse, pulls a firearm of his own and shoots you. You might've only been robbed, but now you find yourself in the middle of a (fire-)fight. Or if you pull the weapon and, with the man not being impressed (ask yourself this; would you shoot a mere robber?!), he doesn't flee and takes the weapon from you. Then, you have an armed bandit on your hands. Seriously, neither situations are unthinkable, in fact they would probably be common.

Cryptkeeper, on 7 Nov 2008, 4:24, said:

thus the gun could be loaded or not in the mind of the assailant it was and you could have very well carried it out and honestly what do alarms etc do the same thing strike fear into the assailant as to prevent crime through intimidation.

People do dangerous things when they're intimidated, that's my point.

Cryptkeeper, on 7 Nov 2008, 4:24, said:

2. ah but i didn't say they would have to do that 24/7 but it would become apart of there long list of duties which would hamper there ability to get the stuff i think is more important such as protecting people from crimes being committed on them and there families instead of crimes being committed just becuase someone possesses something illegal

Stuff that is more important being gunfights and manslaughter, for example ? (v.s.)

[Cryptkeeper]

1. so are you saying a person would not be intimidated by a gun the only time I've ever seen that happen is if they are knocked up full of drugs or have mental disorder beyond the fact if some one tries to pull the gun from you do they or do they not mean harm to a person if you were a cop what would you do in situation were a person is so willing to kills or harm another do you sit there let the criminal walk up and take your gun and shoot you or do you fire on him before he takes your gun ?

so these decisions are very hard to make but there are simply sometimes that people have to make decisions based on there own survival would you get rid of a tool that would increase there survival by what i mean is defense and have them just die becuase they can't protect themselves sure you could tell them to study martial arts or find something to throw or hit them with or maybe a taser or pepper spray but there are times when neither would work so i guess its alright for them to die huh ? just so long as they don't hurt or kill the criminal.

while i admit not all situation nor most situations should be handled by a gun even when it comes to criminal activity there are times when they are very valuable tool for defense when a cop can't be there or help of any kind. That's why i said it takes maturity and intelligence to use them properly of course most people don't fall under this category heck i admit i don't even know if i do I have a lot to still learn

really anyone who tries something like that for most part would have shot or harmed them wither they had a gun or not. people for the most part don't try anything when under fear most flee rather then fight especially when it comes to guns those who fight are those who would have attacked anyways.


yah there more important so is rape assault in fact if you want to get down too it how about we ban cars too they can easily be used as weapon we can't trust them in anybodies hands becuase there are those who would use them as such maybe evewn strap bombs to them and ram magor buildigns cuasing untold amount of death and destruction that a handgun could never dream of doing.

[Chyros]

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

1. so are you saying a person would not be intimidated by a gun the only time I've ever seen that happen is if they are knocked up full of drugs or have mental disorder

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Any thug with common sense will know that it takes something to pull a trigger. Which is something to taker advantage of, of course.

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

beyond the fact if some one tries to pull the gun from you do they or do they not mean harm to a person if you were a cop what would you do in situation were a person is so willing to kills or harm another do you sit there let the criminal walk up and take your gun and shoot you or do you fire on him before he takes your gun ?

Ha, but that's a cop! Someone who is specifically licensed to carry a firearm, trained to use one, and aware of the consequences it will have. Trained and made accustomed to the occasions this can happen in and also capable of using an alternative over the firearm (a cop can easily bash you unconscious with their baton, they don't have to use their pistols to incapacitate you).

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

so these decisions are very hard to make but there are simply sometimes that people have to make decisions based on there own survival

Yes, that's true, but IMO it doesn't apply here. Have you encountered, so far in your life, a situation in which you would be dead if you didn't have a firearm at the time? Well I hope the answer is no . The vast, vast majority of the world's population would have to say that they haven't. So having the general population have firearms would not really increase their "chance of survival" by anything noticeable. At least not in a positive way - IMO when everyone has firearms, it's much easier for a conflict to escalate to something deadly which would otherwise not have been the case.

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

just so long as they don't hurt or kill the criminal.

You can't just legalise firearms and expect people not to be able to use them. And when they use them, you have a bad situation, regardless. Result: bad.

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

while i admit not all situation nor most situations should be handled by a gun even when it comes to criminal activity there are times when they are very valuable tool for defense when a cop can't be there or help of any kind. That's why i said it takes maturity and intelligence to use them properly of course most people don't fall under this category heck i admit i don't even know if i do I have a lot to still learn

Like you say, this is IMO the fatal flaw in the reasoning. Sure, if it would be a given that everybody would use firearms responsibly, we could all carry firearms night and day to everywhere. But this is not the case. Firearms are easily abused and accidents easily happen with them, period. Hence, the general population should not have access to them, unless they acquire a special license for it.

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

really anyone who tries something like that for most part would have shot or harmed them wither they had a gun or not. people for the most part don't try anything when under fear most flee rather then fight especially when it comes to guns those who fight are those who would have attacked anyways.

I wouldn't underestimate the amount of people who would, out of panic, attack you.

Cryptkeeper, on 8 Nov 2008, 21:20, said:

yah there more important so is rape assault in fact if you want to get down too it how about we ban cars too they can easily be used as weapon we can't trust them in anybodies hands becuase there are those who would use them as such maybe evewn strap bombs to them and ram magor buildigns cuasing untold amount of death and destruction that a handgun could never dream of doing.

You are overlooking here that cars have a different main purpose and are used by the gross majority of people for transportation, hence why it is unthinkable to ban cars. The majority of small arms are used to kill, wound, threaten and destroy. Only relatively few people use it for sport. And defence.... :rolleyes

[Cryptkeeper]

well honestly about the car thing i did take into account their main purpose but that doesn't eliminate the fact they can easily be used for other purposes ;just like guns there meant for killing yes but only in defense at least thats what i believe others probably think differently

so why not have people specially licensed like cops to get firearms ? and also I would have to say cops tend to abuse firearms at least in the usa more then civilians do

Quote

You are overlooking here that cars have a different main purpose and are used by the gross majority of people for transportation, hence why it is unthinkable to ban cars. The majority of small arms are used to kill, wound, threaten and destroy. Only relatively few people use it for sport. And defence.... :rolleyes

after living with people many many people who have firearms i can absolutely say this is wrong in fact where i live texas that is what people mostly use guns for defense and hunting(mostly this tho). you only hear about the opposite becuase well the media in general don't like to give good stories when bad stories that shock or other wise effect there emotional senses makes them more money. so a lot times your hearing the minority not the majority.

and trust me i get your reasoning and i even agree to a point with you about guns but I also think that the freedom to have firearms is more important then the risk of legally licensed weapons to fall into peoples hands becuase wither legal or not people will get them and more often or not the guns who used to do something violent are not licensed and are illegally bought or stolen which is why you should all ways have your guns locked up like my dad does.

there's a reason why they get them illegally to a. they are ex cons already b. they don't want any trail of there crime often times guns that are licensed have a paper trail that cops can easily follow c. they want to buy somethign that normally are not sold in your average gun shop ak47s uzi's most any weapon that is auto.

and all tho this may seem like weak reason but with out guns how would you protect yourself from a government that decides to turn facist abandoning the for the people by the people in are constitution it would be quite hard to rebel or or flee from prosecution not normal every day scenario but one must be ready for just about every thing lol

I enjoyed are discussion I'm eager to hear your reply. *all tho I feel like I'm the only one defending guns XD and i don't even own gun a or plan to get one but I value the freedom to choose to get one for hunting or defense*

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 09 November 2008 - 07:13.

[Chyros]

Cryptkeeper, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:06, said:

so why not have people specially licensed like cops to get firearms ?

Uh, but I never disputed this?

Quote

You are overlooking here that cars have a different main purpose and are used by the gross majority of people for transportation, hence why it is unthinkable to ban cars. The majority of small arms are used to kill, wound, threaten and destroy. Only relatively few people use it for sport. And defence.... :rolleyes

Cryptkeeper, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:06, said:

becuase wither legal or not people will get them

People who want a firearm to use it on someone will indeed probably still be able to acquire one easily. But not legalising general possession will still scare off just about everyone not intent on directly (ab)using it. If firearm possession were legal in my country, I would be communicating to you from a room filled with firearms . But still not letting everyone have a firearm seriously reduces the chance of accidents and escalations into gunfights.

Cryptkeeper, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:06, said:

and all tho this may seem like weak reason but with out guns how would you protect yourself from a government that decides to turn facist abandoning the for the people by the people in are constitution it would be quite hard to rebel or or flee from prosecution not normal every day scenario but one must be ready for just about every thing lol

Uhh, yes, by not electing fascists . I suppose presidential countries like yours are more vulnerable to this than parlementarian ones like mine, though.

Cryptkeeper, on 9 Nov 2008, 9:06, said:

I enjoyed are discussion I'm eager to hear your reply. *all tho I feel like I'm the only one defending guns XD and i don't even own gun a or plan to get one but I value the freedom to choose to get one for hunting or defense*

Heheh, we do seem to be a bit alone in here, yes.

Edited by Chyros, 09 November 2008 - 10:50.