Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT
 

Augustine:

tsb247:

That is very much a slippery slope kind of argument. You will find precious few (if any) people arguing for the legality of grenades, bombs, and sarin gas. There is a limit to those freedoms, and it generally stops at firearms - up to full-auto.

Destructive devices are already impractical as they require expensive liscencing and are EXTREMELY (I can't stress this enough) cost-prohibitive.

Explosives/Incendiaries/Poisons can be made quite easily by anyone with little determination and enough cash for a short shopping trip. Ban of them is an inconvenience, not an insurmountable obstacle.
Certainly, home made items may not be as reliable or effective as the real thing - but that's semantics.

I agree. They can be made by anyone who puts their mind to it, and it would do little to attempt to regulate them.

As for how effective they can be...

Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that a sick criminal doesn't need a firearm to cause incredible destruction and anguish. A well-constructed bomb, grenade, or chemical device can be far more effective if constructed correctly. The worst part is that the construction of such devices is almost common knowledge these days.

Accidental double post due to internet issues. Please disregard.

spartan231490:
Tazer? A person with drugs or alcohol in their system(like the majority of assailants) isn't likely to be stopped with just one taze, and civilian issue are either one shot, or rely on direct contact where you run into the same problems as with a knife.

Er...do you have a source for the alcohol/drugs thing? As I understood it, the Taser isn't affected by things like that.

That's not to say that there aren't any number of disadvantages to Tasers, just that I didn't think that was one of them.

llagrok:
What is this ridiculous misconception that "criminals will get a gun"? Who are "criminals" ? Every criminal person out in society? Is this some faceless blob that encompasses everybody who's ever broken the law? Remove guns from the circulation in society and most of them will disappear from the streets. Anybody who's truly devoting their time and resources will eventually get a hold of a weapon, but it erases a whole deal of accidents, heat of the moment issues and poor guys making mistakes that last lifetimes. If getting a hold of a gun becomes an expensive affair then that changes the circumstances for most criminals that any idiot would feel the need to be "protected" from.

It naturally does nothing to prevent those people from being born into poverty and kept there by true criminals, but it would at least sort out of many of the perceived dangers that the media has programmed into the minds of most plebs out there.

*Sigh* And how, pray, is this magical 'removal from circulation' going to occur (with regard to the United States)? What on Earth would give you faith that our government is even remotely capable of that given its abject failures with prohibition, drug control, municipal gun bans, and border control (to name a few)?

See, that's the thing: if a gun ban could even have a remote possibility of working, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't, in fact it would only create a boom for the criminal element. Who are these criminals, you ask? Well we don't rightly know one until he manifests his plot. They tend not to wear uniforms, you see. Which makes an encounter with one all the more dangerous; you don't know who he is, what he wants, or how far he's willing to go. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is best to be as prepared as you can reasonably be to deal with him -- up to and including ending him if the situation calls for it.

Now this is where a lot of people tend to misinterpret a gun owner's stance. I bet upon reading that last paragraph you assumed I meant killing every criminal I come across - despite the fact that I included a qualifier at the end of my provision. It's happened before and if you were smart enough to catch that, rest assured: there's someone out there who wasn't. However, the gun is merely an OPTION, one of several means to an end. The end, in this case, being a resolution to this violation that keeps myself and my family safe.

If, when confronted with the weapon, the man chooses to surrender or flee; then there is no need to fire. If I am placed in an imposition where I will not be able to reach my weapon in time, but may yet resolve the situation by capitulating, that too is an acceptable (though not desireable) solution. If, however, the assailant decides to press the attack and I am forced to defend myself; I'd rather be assured that the tool with which I am defending is the most effective option available to stop the assault. If my assailant dies in the process; that's his own doing.

It is a curious thing that so many people here seem to think the various US law enforcement agencies and government departments would not fuck everything up terribly in regards to this issue.

That doesn't seem to be the general opinion of this forum in regards to most other issues.

spartan231490:

Trippy Turtle:

spartan231490:

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Emotional hyperbole has no place in a discussion about legal policy. I will once again say that there is absolutely 0, none, nada, the big goose egg, zilch, zip, zero evidence to suggest that more guns means fewer crimes. Further, yeah, those 2% might have been better off without guns, but the victim would have been a lot worse off the other 98%. That's 98% of at least 1.5 million people that use a firearm to defend themselves who would be unable to if you banned guns.

Did you mean less guns not more guns?
Anyway those statistics are only accidental shooting of people. If you were mugging someone you wouldn't want to have to shoot. If they pull a weapon you are probably going to shoot. Them having a weapon in my opinion makes it more likely for them to die. I would prefer to live and not be able to defend my wallet thanks.

I'm British too, but I honestly think that you should have the right to choice. The fact of the matter is you can have as many checks, waiting periods and whatever other safety measure you like but whether you're getting a gun illegally or legally you can never really know for certain how that gun will be used.

If this is about that recent shooting then I'd say that there should be no argument about gun control, the entire argument should be about the health system. It's mental illness that needs to be tackled, not guns. Guns aren't the problem here.

senordesol:
snip

Not only did you not respond to the part that was aimed at your quote, but you construed an argument of your own to respond. That's a sidetrack and a strawman in one move, that's impressive.

But let's get into this anyway and see if we can't turn on the light behind another vacant stare.

senordesol:

*Sigh* And how, pray, is this magical 'removal from circulation' going to occur (with regard to the United States)? What on Earth would give you faith that our government is even remotely capable of that given its abject failures with prohibition, drug control, municipal gun bans, and border control (to name a few)?

First off, you presume to understand or know about my stance on gun regulation when I have not shared it with you.

Getting guns out of circulation needs more than a change of laws, people's mindset would have to change and the cowboy attitude would have to change. Most importantly the need for guns would have to be dealt with, the actual problem. I notice that you didn't pick up on this earlier when I addressed what I consider the "real" criminals, but I'll reiterate just for you.

Your perceived problem and "criminals" are of course born out of poverty and ignorance and all that jazz. So attacking the gun-laws in themselves does not necessarily change anything in your government and your people do not want them to change. Which brings me to one of your first questions and the lacking examples within;

I have no faith in your government, gun bans won't happen.

"War on drugs" was not a war on the actual problem that causes drug abuse, nor any real attempt by your government to actually clamp down on drug-import (not to mention offshore military actions and coups that actually help INCREASE drug trafficking on an international level) but rather to go after low-level distributors and fill up privately owned correctional facilities. While simultaneously do nothing to alter the conditions that create drug abuse and maintain a steady flow of drug-import.

I have no problem with armed border-patrols. Which brings me back to the first comment about you not knowing anything about my stance on gun control. I brought up European countries and highlighted the Scandinavian ones (where the police do not carry weapons) as examples of people whose attitude have matured far beyond your own colonial-day ideas. Removing guns from police-officers is not something I think would help get guns off the streets, the idea of police bringing guns into the lower echelons of the socio-economic ladder not withstanding. But like I said, it would have to come from a desire to change, and that does not exist so the aforementioned corrupt servicemen might leak firearms into poverty-stricken neighbourhoods.

Short answer: These did not work because nobody in power wants to combat the actual problems, which is why "war on drugs" didn't work well and why "war on guns" wouldn't work either.

senordesol:

See, that's the thing: if a gun ban could even have a remote possibility of working, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't, in fact it would only create a boom for the criminal element. Who are these criminals, you ask? Well we don't rightly know one until he manifests his plot. They tend not to wear uniforms, you see. Which makes an encounter with one all the more dangerous; you don't know who he is, what he wants, or how far he's willing to go. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is best to be as prepared as you can reasonably be to deal with him -- up to and including ending him if the situation calls for it.

This is just some desperate attempt to separate yourself from the perceived "faceless criminal blob" and is mostly a product of media-induced fear, poorly done research and a narrow-minded personality. I can do little to remedy this enormous misconception other than tell you to stop watching so much CNN and lay off the action-movies for a while. You sound like a republican-superhero from the 70s.

senordesol:
If, when confronted with the weapon, the man chooses to surrender or flee; then there is no need to fire. If I am placed in an imposition where I will not be able to reach my weapon in time, but may yet resolve the situation by capitulating, that too is an acceptable (though not desireable) solution. If, however, the assailant decides to press the attack and I am forced to defend myself; I'd rather be assured that the tool with which I am defending is the most effective option available to stop the assault. If my assailant dies in the process; that's his own doing.

Have you ever been maced? or stungunned? I haven't had the pleasure myself, but I've witnessed it first hand, and anybody short of paul bunyan should drop like a bag of potatoes. Options that are far less threatening to those around you, barely susceptible to accidents, legal to conceal and can be used guilt-free without having to pull some desperate rationalization that the decision has been removed from your hands and that whomever you shoot is completely responsible for your actions.

The idea that killing a man might impact you somehow (legally or mentally) was freely ignored. But I will bring it up once again. You are lying to yourself if you are saying that shooting a person would come easy and even more deluded yet if you think that the guy who might break into your home and steal your TV is the real problem here.

Finally, I just have to ask. Are you satisfied with people being poor? Do you feel that the way to combat crime is to arm up, ignore the cause and simply keep building prisons? :D

When you look to your Scandinavian overmen and see high-standard of living, low crime, no guns, etc etc, do you believe that this is because they have less "evil people" in their country? Why do you think that is?

thaluikhain:

spartan231490:
Tazer? A person with drugs or alcohol in their system(like the majority of assailants) isn't likely to be stopped with just one taze, and civilian issue are either one shot, or rely on direct contact where you run into the same problems as with a knife.

Er...do you have a source for the alcohol/drugs thing? As I understood it, the Taser isn't affected by things like that.

That's not to say that there aren't any number of disadvantages to Tasers, just that I didn't think that was one of them.

Can't find as good a source as I want but:
One extreme case: http://azdailysun.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/tasered-times----and-still-alive/article_beaa8785-d918-52ad-a113-7b984e6d6608.html
The guy was handcuffed and tazed over 70 times and he was still struggling so badly it took 8 men to force him into the police cruiser.

Here's one police couldn't stop with tazers and then shot: http://www.myrecordjournal.com/meriden/article_4f7b04d0-97c2-11e1-80a4-001a4bcf887a.html

Here's one guy they had subdued on the ground who stood up and ran away while they were tazering him and he wasn't even high:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80645852/

This guy shrugged off a tazer and then lost a fist-fight with the officer(on Meth):
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/06/01/Man_who_shrugs_off_Taser_but_loses_fist_fight_with_officer_d/

This guy wasn't slowed down by a single tazer, it took 3 at once to bring him down:
http://www.sakonnet.com/news/2012/may/25/suspect-struggles-despite-pepper-spray-taser/

One of the "cannibal attacks" the guy was tazed and pepper sprayed and kept struggling against the officers:
http://thebeaconsglare.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/facing-facts/

This guy was only on synthetic weed and tazers didn't take him down:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-631628.html

I can't find the source I found years ago, it was about tazer deaths and had several incidences listed. They aren't as good, but there are quite a few of these individual sources.

Trippy Turtle:

spartan231490:

Trippy Turtle:
First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Emotional hyperbole has no place in a discussion about legal policy. I will once again say that there is absolutely 0, none, nada, the big goose egg, zilch, zip, zero evidence to suggest that more guns means fewer crimes. Further, yeah, those 2% might have been better off without guns, but the victim would have been a lot worse off the other 98%. That's 98% of at least 1.5 million people that use a firearm to defend themselves who would be unable to if you banned guns.

Did you mean less guns not more guns?
Anyway those statistics are only accidental shooting of people. If you were mugging someone you wouldn't want to have to shoot. If they pull a weapon you are probably going to shoot. Them having a weapon in my opinion makes it more likely for them to die. I would prefer to live and not be able to defend my wallet thanks.

Statistics show that you are right in general. Carrying any kind of self defense weapon makes it more likely that you will be injured in an attack, with one exception: firearms. Pulling a gun on a mugger is most likely to make him run away, not start a gunfight with you. You are over 4 times more likely to be injured or killed if you do nothing when being assaulted than if you defend yourself with a gun
"Fact: You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates are:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%"
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-control-myths
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Further, this isn't about just muggings. This is about murders, rapes, home invasions, kidnappings. Are you saying people should just let themselves get murdered/raped/kidnapped because defending themselves might get them hurt? 1.5 million people defend themselves every year using firearms, if this really put them in more danger, we'd have a lot more murders than we do.

A survey of felons in prison found that: "34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim""

"42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime
• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once"
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Why deny them the right to defend themselves when it doesn't reduce crime rate, doesn't lead to fewer people dying, and doesn't put them at greater risk.

llagrok:

senordesol:
snip

Not only did you not respond to the part that was aimed at your quote, but you construed an argument of your own to respond. That's a sidetrack and a strawman in one move, that's impressive.

But let's get into this anyway and see if we can't turn on the light behind another vacant stare.

senordesol:

*Sigh* And how, pray, is this magical 'removal from circulation' going to occur (with regard to the United States)? What on Earth would give you faith that our government is even remotely capable of that given its abject failures with prohibition, drug control, municipal gun bans, and border control (to name a few)?

First off, you presume to understand or know about my stance on gun regulation when I have not shared it with you.

Getting guns out of circulation needs more than a change of laws, people's mindset would have to change and the cowboy attitude would have to change. Most importantly the need for guns would have to be dealt with, the actual problem. I notice that you didn't pick up on this earlier when I addressed what I consider the "real" criminals, but I'll reiterate just for you.

Your perceived problem and "criminals" are of course born out of poverty and ignorance and all that jazz. So attacking the gun-laws in themselves does not necessarily change anything in your government and your people do not want them to change. Which brings me to one of your first questions and the lacking examples within;

I have no faith in your government, gun bans won't happen.

"War on drugs" was not a war on the actual problem that causes drug abuse, nor any real attempt by your government to actually clamp down on drug-import (not to mention offshore military actions and coups that actually help INCREASE drug trafficking on an international level) but rather to go after low-level distributors and fill up privately owned correctional facilities. While simultaneously do nothing to alter the conditions that create drug abuse and maintain a steady flow of drug-import.

I have no problem with armed border-patrols. Which brings me back to the first comment about you not knowing anything about my stance on gun control. I brought up European countries and highlighted the Scandinavian ones (where the police do not carry weapons) as examples of people whose attitude have matured far beyond your own colonial-day ideas. Removing guns from police-officers is not something I think would help get guns off the streets, the idea of police bringing guns into the lower echelons of the socio-economic ladder not withstanding. But like I said, it would have to come from a desire to change, and that does not exist so the aforementioned corrupt servicemen might leak firearms into poverty-stricken neighbourhoods.

Short answer: These did not work because nobody in power wants to combat the actual problems, which is why "war on drugs" didn't work well and why "war on guns" wouldn't work either.

senordesol:

See, that's the thing: if a gun ban could even have a remote possibility of working, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't, in fact it would only create a boom for the criminal element. Who are these criminals, you ask? Well we don't rightly know one until he manifests his plot. They tend not to wear uniforms, you see. Which makes an encounter with one all the more dangerous; you don't know who he is, what he wants, or how far he's willing to go. Under such circumstances, therefore, it is best to be as prepared as you can reasonably be to deal with him -- up to and including ending him if the situation calls for it.

This is just some desperate attempt to separate yourself from the perceived "faceless criminal blob" and is mostly a product of media-induced fear, poorly done research and a narrow-minded personality. I can do little to remedy this enormous misconception other than tell you to stop watching so much CNN and lay off the action-movies for a while. You sound like a republican-superhero from the 70s.

senordesol:
If, when confronted with the weapon, the man chooses to surrender or flee; then there is no need to fire. If I am placed in an imposition where I will not be able to reach my weapon in time, but may yet resolve the situation by capitulating, that too is an acceptable (though not desireable) solution. If, however, the assailant decides to press the attack and I am forced to defend myself; I'd rather be assured that the tool with which I am defending is the most effective option available to stop the assault. If my assailant dies in the process; that's his own doing.

Have you ever been maced? or stungunned? I haven't had the pleasure myself, but I've witnessed it first hand, and anybody short of paul bunyan should drop like a bag of potatoes. Options that are far less threatening to those around you, barely susceptible to accidents, legal to conceal and can be used guilt-free without having to pull some desperate rationalization that the decision has been removed from your hands and that whomever you shoot is completely responsible for your actions.

The idea that killing a man might impact you somehow (legally or mentally) was freely ignored. But I will bring it up once again. You are lying to yourself if you are saying that shooting a person would come easy and even more deluded yet if you think that the guy who might break into your home and steal your TV is the real problem here.

Finally, I just have to ask. Are you satisfied with people being poor? Do you feel that the way to combat crime is to arm up, ignore the cause and simply keep building prisons? :D

When you look to your Scandinavian overmen and see high-standard of living, low crime, no guns, etc etc, do you believe that this is because they have less "evil people" in their country? Why do you think that is?

First: I owe you an apology. I made several erroneous assumptions about your stance, which puts me in the wrong with regard to my previous response.

Sorry about that.

Second: It sounds as if your stance is that you would rather there not be a need for guns than a law against them. I agree with that.

Third: As an individual, however, there is very little I can do to eliminate that need. Social changes are all well and good, but the pace and degree in which they occur is frankly out of my hands and until they do, there will still be desperate people who do desperate things.

Fourth: And this is the crucial thing: until such changes come to pass, I'm stuck with the society I have. As such, I still need to be prepared for those same desperate people if and when they come to my door. Tazers and Pepper Spray (one needs a license for mace) are all well and good if your assailant is close enough for those to be effective, as well as other mitigating factors -- for example: if he happens to be weaing a thick jacket, tazers will not be effective. If he's wearing a mask (particularly if it protects his eyes): pepper spray will be less effective. Bullets, on the other hand, will be effective in either case.

With regard to how a shooting will affect me either legally or personnally: Those are valid concerns, but not a compelling argument to dispense with a firearm in the first place. With the assumption of the responsibility of ownership of a firearm, I know that I also assume all risks inherent. Any fallout from that is my problem.

farson135:

Alexnader:
however that does not mean you've won the main point of contention which is that Australia is just too damn big.

1/100th of 1% of an area with 5,000 people was enough to effectively control the pig population. That is about 30 people. Once again, if you cannot find 30 people in an area of about 100 square miles, then the pigs are irrelevant anyway.

Did you even read the rest of my post? Did you not look at the map? We were not arguing over the relevance of pigs to other people but of the difficulty in reducing their numbers significantly. You said originally that we had more pigs than people and blamed that solely on the lower number of semi-automatic weapons dispersed amongst the population. I've just shown you that a vast amount of pigs live in the middle of bloody woop woop and now you say "oh but those pigs don't count". You have presented to me no data about the density of pigs around higher density populations of people. Show me that people can't keep the pigs out of their back gardens. Also keep in mind the size of Australian cattle ranges can be ridiculous, many of those areas would have the lowest population density and be some of the worst effected by pigs. The only thing you've said that wasn't anecdotal was that there are more pigs than people and that number is aggregate over the entire continent, it does not help your new claim that we can't control pigs close to larger population centres.

And keep in mind you need 30 hunters, not 30 "people". My grandma lives out in the bush and I doubt she could go shooting pigs, would you count her in your numbers? Because others like her would certainly be counted in the census that frequently shows a population density of less than 0.1 people per square kilometer.

farson135:

Furthermore read this document which claims that ground shooting is inherently very much a secondary means of population control due to factors beyond the hunter's control (pigs are sneaky) and is far behind aerial shooting (done by professionals with semi automatics), trapping and poisoning. If valid this presents another blow to your claim that Australia would have much less of a pig problem if we had more relaxed gun laws.

Actually I have done aerial hunting and it is not effective. Pigs are sneaky, they do not stick around when helicopters start flying over. Which is why the paper said that it is only valuable when hunting large numbers of pigs.

BTW you think poisoning is a good idea? You realize that things eat the pigs once they die, and when they die their bodies decompose and the fluids go where (takes finger and points down)?

I'll weigh the cited claims in the article higher than your stories about "pigs being sneaky". Aerial shoots are only economically sound when hunting large numbers, so what? One thing you have made pains to stake out is Australia has no shortage of high density pig spots. Aerial shooting is economically viable, having hunters go out and wander around in the bush for a while is generally not unless it's being used in areas where pig numbers are low.

Also do you seriously think the toxins used in pig baiting pose a threat to groundwater of all things? Threats to groundwater come primarily from industrial scale processes such as frakking. Catchment threats likewise come from things like farm run-off and industrial discharges. Not relatively small doses of poison strategically placed in low risk areas. I profess a fair amount of ignorance here so please point me to any hard evidence you have for baiting threatening water supplies. Primary and secondary poisoning of other species is the main risk, one that's carefully managed. The people using these poisons are professionals and the bait they use has been developed to target pigs. It's not without risk but risk is something to be managed, not avoided.

farson135:

Your state with your cowboys were the ones harping on about open prairies, not my fault it's a stereotype. Also you could well live in a pretty area so congrats.

YOU accuse me of not knowing about your country and you talk about my country in the form of stereotypes.

I accuse you of ignorance to facts pertaining to our discussion. I will gladly wallow in the self-delusion that you all wear white cowboy hats and fire six-shooters into the air when celebrating because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. As far as I'm concerned only Austin is free of crazy cowboys because I've seen the Rooster Teeth crew and with the exception of Jack I can't picture them rustling cattle.

farson135:

I don't care how many automatics you own, I'm trying to be something that was once known as "on topic" but has long been lost to us. The point is they may be tightly regulated but they're not illegal for civilians in America and that seems quite crazy to me. In Australia only collectors can have them provided they have been permanently disabled.

There has never been a crime committed with a legally owned Class III Firearm by a civilian in American history. I do not see the problem.

A few minutes of google did not avail to me the definition of a class 3 firearm but only brought me websites gleefully showing off assault rifles and the like so I'll assume you mean automatic weapon. Please limit the country-specific jargon, I don't go around calling semi-automatics "Class D weapons" now do I?

I love the way you snuck that truth out so carefully, massacres have been done with automatic weapons however if you're not lying then those weapons weren't legally owned. I daresay the criminals would've had a harder time getting those weapons if there wasn't a legal excuse for those weapons to be in the country.

Alexnader:
Did you even read the rest of my post? Did you not look at the map? We were not arguing over the relevance of pigs to other people but of the difficulty in reducing their numbers significantly. You said originally that we had more pigs than people and blamed that solely on the lower number of semi-automatic weapons dispersed amongst the population. I've just shown you that a vast amount of pigs live in the middle of bloody woop woop and now you say "oh but those pigs don't count". You have presented to me no data about the density of pigs around higher density populations of people. Show me that people can't keep the pigs out of their back gardens. Also keep in mind the size of Australian cattle ranges can be ridiculous, many of those areas would have the lowest population density and be some of the worst effected by pigs. The only thing you've said that wasn't anecdotal was that there are more pigs than people and that number is aggregate over the entire continent, it does not help your new claim that we can't control pigs close to larger population centres.

If the pigs are in the middle of nowhere then they do not matter because they are not affecting the people. Your pigs that are destroying property are the problem. If you cannot find people to hunt the pigs then they are apparently not a problem in that area.

Yes, you can effectively neutralize the pig population where it matters. We do it here and there is absolutely no reason why you cannot do it in Australia.

And no, I did not blame it solely on the lack of equipment. I said we do not want to become like y'all. The way we can become like y'all is to destroy people's ability to do the fucking job. If you destroy the ability to do the job then other problems flow from that problem.

And keep in mind you need 30 hunters, not 30 "people". My grandma lives out in the bush and I doubt she could go shooting pigs, would you count her in your numbers? Because others like her would certainly be counted in the census that frequently shows a population density of less than 0.1 people per square kilometer.

My Grandma and Grandpa were hunting pigs well into their 70s, once I matured sufficiently they stopped but you get the point.

I'll weigh the cited claims in the article higher than your stories about "pigs being sneaky".

Have you ever done an aerial shoot? Have you ever hunted pigs? Do you have any experience whatsoever that would counter my own? No?

Aerial shoots are only economically sound when hunting large numbers, so what? One thing you have made pains to stake out is Australia has no shortage of high density pig spots.

High density in some areas. The paper failed to mention the fact that you cannot use it in dense bush, and you cannot effectively use it unless you know where the pigs are, etc.

Aerial shooting is economically viable, having hunters go out and wander around in the bush for a while is generally not unless it's being used in areas where pig numbers are low.

With your methods yes, but then again, y'all do not use the proper methods as I have already explained.

Also do you seriously think the toxins used in pig baiting pose a threat to groundwater of all things? Threats to groundwater come primarily from industrial scale processes such as frakking. Catchment threats likewise come from things like farm run-off and industrial discharges. Not relatively small doses of poison strategically placed in low risk areas. I profess a fair amount of ignorance here so please point me to any hard evidence you have for baiting threatening water supplies. Primary and secondary poisoning of other species is the main risk, one that's carefully managed. The people using these poisons are professionals and the bait they use has been developed to target pigs. It's not without risk but risk is something to be managed, not avoided.

It all depends on the individual poison but there is still a risk contrary to claims that it is completely safe and better than my methods.

Here are a few studies/articles to look through-
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/infobase/eisler/chr_30_sodium_monofluoroacetate.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/agr/pesticides/publications/docs/groundwater_factsheet.pdf

I accuse you of ignorance to facts pertaining to our discussion.

And yet you have shown absolutely expertise on this issue.

I will gladly wallow in the self-delusion that you all wear white cowboy hats and fire six-shooters into the air when celebrating because it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. As far as I'm concerned only Austin is free of crazy cowboys because I've seen the Rooster Teeth crew and with the exception of Jack I can't picture them rustling cattle.

First of all Rooster Teeth is in Buda which is outside of Austin.

Second of all, your stereotypes still show that you are ignorant of my area. YOU are trying to say that the tactics used in my area cannot work in your own and yet you know nothing about my area.

A few minutes of google did not avail to me the definition of a class 3 firearm but only brought me websites gleefully showing off assault rifles and the like so I'll assume you mean automatic weapon. Please limit the country-specific jargon, I don't go around calling semi-automatics "Class D weapons" now do I?

But it is not just automatics. They are automatic firearms that were made before 1986 and are registered in the US. They are also silencers, sawed off shotguns, and basically any firearms covered under NFA.

I love the way you snuck that truth out so carefully, massacres have been done with automatic weapons however if you're not lying then those weapons weren't legally owned. I daresay the criminals would've had a harder time getting those weapons if there wasn't a legal excuse for those weapons to be in the country.

They were not legally owned which means that they were gotten illegally. The presence of absence of legal machine-guns is irrelevant.

BTW you still have not shown one damn good reason to ban Class III Firearms.

I don't agree with nobody having a gun but I also don't agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun lying around to play with. I think there are certain situations that require a gun like police (to SOME extent) and hostages but I don't agree with my country that everyone should have a gun. They are nice for hunting but I think our forefathers intended people to have guns because of wars and our minute-men but now-a-day is significantly different. So it is purely a situation-based judgement.

easternflame:

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

Gonna stop here for a sec and respond, have not read the last 2 pages yet, but...

10 killed and 50+ injured is actually the record for that, IIRC. And some of those were actually armed.

I'll throw in that pigs are an invasive species and it does not matter if they're in a populated area or not, they're doing damage.

llagrok:

Purchase PEPPER SPRAY or in the worst case a STUN GUN, and you can immobilise just about any adult man without scarring yourself (+ any onlookers) and possibly crippling/killing yourself or another person. Think you're just gonna cap some guy breaking into your house and move on your merry god damned way? are you john wayne? Shoot someone and you're going to hurt yourself, one way or the other.

Um, not really. Capsaicin hurts like hell, true, but it also fails utterly against certain people or people under the effects of certain substances (or if it's, you know, windy out). Both pepper spray and stun guns are fairly short range weapons. They only really work against an unarmed assailant.

And, in my experience, sometimes it's a good thing to shoot them dead. One of the men I did not kill later got out on parole and murdered a two month old baby on his next home invasion.

Edit: Amusing capcha 'easy as cake'

Devoneaux:

Owen Robertson:

Because a 236 year old document says we can have them.

The guns are meant to empower the civilian population in extreme cases of governmental strife, like say if Obama decided to disband the senate and what have you and make America into an autocratic state. It might not be likely, but the possibility is always there. That's what the right to bear arms is about. It has nothing to do with preventing them damn redcoats from invadin'! It's about making sure the government doesn't try to take over our lives by providing a deterrent and a means of fighting back should they ever try. Really the fact that people don't seem to understand this is dumbfounding to me...

I only left that part of my quote to emphasize it. I have an understanding that it is not only your right to overthrow an invasive and/or authoritative governments, it is actually your duty as an American citizen. (I think it's a Thomas Jefferson quote)

So why doesn't it happen? When SOPA and PIPA were close to success, were you ready to murder in the name of your freedom?
When the Senate nearly disbanded because of the budget disagreement, how close were you to the President so you could rise up, gun in hand?

You weren't because most citizens only want guns because they're afraid. It may be subconscious, but it's there. You're afraid of burglars, rapists, kidnappers, and ne'er-do-wells. You think that the gun will save you. I'm not psychoanalyzing the American public, but I've watched your "news". CNN, MSNBC, and FOX fear-monger like it's going out of style.

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

Death God:
I don't agree with nobody having a gun but I also don't agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun lying around to play with. I think there are certain situations that require a gun like police (to SOME extent) and hostages but I don't agree with my country that everyone should have a gun. They are nice for hunting but I think our forefathers intended people to have guns because of wars and our minute-men but now-a-day is significantly different. So it is purely a situation-based judgement.

You know, I think you placed out one of the most reasonable and fair arguments I've ever heard. Please have as many children as possible and teach them to debate like that. Please. I'm worried for the future.

BaronIveagh:

llagrok:

Purchase PEPPER SPRAY or in the worst case a STUN GUN, and you can immobilise just about any adult man without scarring yourself (+ any onlookers) and possibly crippling/killing yourself or another person. Think you're just gonna cap some guy breaking into your house and move on your merry god damned way? are you john wayne? Shoot someone and you're going to hurt yourself, one way or the other.

Um, not really. Capsaicin hurts like hell, true, but it also fails utterly against certain people or people under the effects of certain substances (or if it's, you know, windy out). Both pepper spray and stun guns are fairly short range weapons. They only really work against an unarmed assailant.

And, in my experience, sometimes it's a good thing to shoot them dead. One of the men I did not kill later got out on parole and murdered a two month old baby on his next home invasion.

Edit: Amusing capcha 'easy as cake'

Wow. Are you a cop? Or are you a private citizen who has really shot multiple people and killed some of them? Respond via message please. I'd like to have a few private words with you.

spartan231490:
Like what? Knives?

No. Knives are very lethal in the right hands. And in the wrong hands. And in no hands at all. Knives aren't "less-than-lethal".
Less than lethal alternatives include: Pepper spray, extendable-nightsticks, stun-guns, hand-to-hand combat training, shit-kicker boots and of course hitting male assailants in the groin.

Owen Robertson:

Death God:
I don't agree with nobody having a gun but I also don't agree that every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun lying around to play with. I think there are certain situations that require a gun like police (to SOME extent) and hostages but I don't agree with my country that everyone should have a gun. They are nice for hunting but I think our forefathers intended people to have guns because of wars and our minute-men but now-a-day is significantly different. So it is purely a situation-based judgement.

You know, I think you placed out one of the most reasonable and fair arguments I've ever heard. Please have as many children as possible and teach them to debate like that. Please. I'm worried for the future.

Well, thank you. Between my country saying I am wrong for not wanting more freedom and the rest of the world saying I am wrong for not wanting stricter laws, it is nice to hear someone agree with my thought process.

Owen Robertson:

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

Imagine that if you own or work with or around guns your more likely to be shot, I salute you sir on your amazing powers of deduction. Hey, do you think if you drive a motor vehicle on a regular basis your more likely to be involved in a car accident then if you never drive or ride in a motor vehicle? How about if you have unprotected sex? More likely or less likely to contract an STD? What do you think the likely hood is that if you jump in a pool your going to get wet vs staying outside of the pool?

Alright enough of the obvious here is a set of some real statics, I didn't write this so I salute the person who crunched the numbers, if nothing else it's great for the lol factor.

"In 2008 there were an estimated 9,369 Homicides with firearms. There are approximately 270,000,000 privately owned (not gov't owned) firearms in the united states. In 2009 there were 73,448 forcible (not statutory or any other type) rapes with a male aggressor. There are 151,781,326 males in this country per the 2010 census. Sooooooo: The chance that any firearm you see will be used in a murder is: 0.0000347%. The chance that any random penis will be used in a rape is .0004839%. Thus: any random penis is 14 times as likely to be used in a rape, as a gun in a murder. Obviously we should outlaw penises in this country since they are 14 times as likely to commit violent crime as guns. Or at least have to license and regulate their use. Or, we can realize that both guns and penises are tools, and the person wielding the tool is the one who commits the crime, not the tool itself."

Owen Robertson:

spartan231490:
Like what? Knives?

No. Knives are very lethal in the right hands. And in the wrong hands. And in no hands at all. Knives aren't "less-than-lethal".
Less than lethal alternatives include: Pepper spray, extendable-nightsticks, stun-guns, hand-to-hand combat training, shit-kicker boots and of course hitting male assailants in the groin.

None of which will reliably decrease your chances of being injured or killed in an attack. The only weapon that does is a firearm.

Owen Robertson:

Devoneaux:

Owen Robertson:

Because a 236 year old document says we can have them.

The guns are meant to empower the civilian population in extreme cases of governmental strife, like say if Obama decided to disband the senate and what have you and make America into an autocratic state. It might not be likely, but the possibility is always there. That's what the right to bear arms is about. It has nothing to do with preventing them damn redcoats from invadin'! It's about making sure the government doesn't try to take over our lives by providing a deterrent and a means of fighting back should they ever try. Really the fact that people don't seem to understand this is dumbfounding to me...

I only left that part of my quote to emphasize it. I have an understanding that it is not only your right to overthrow an invasive and/or authoritative governments, it is actually your duty as an American citizen. (I think it's a Thomas Jefferson quote)

So why doesn't it happen? When SOPA and PIPA were close to success, were you ready to murder in the name of your freedom?
When the Senate nearly disbanded because of the budget disagreement, how close were you to the President so you could rise up, gun in hand?

You weren't because most citizens only want guns because they're afraid. It may be subconscious, but it's there. You're afraid of burglars, rapists, kidnappers, and ne'er-do-wells. You think that the gun will save you. I'm not psychoanalyzing the American public, but I've watched your "news". CNN, MSNBC, and FOX fear-monger like it's going out of style.

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

I'm not saying it works, mostly due to the fact that ours is a society that has grown rather lethargic in recent years. Voter turnout is exceptionally low, as is the average citizen's involvement in politics. I only gave you it's purpose, nothing more. And honestly, what you suggest about "Murdering people" Over SOPA? No need, because it didn't pass. SOPA was a lesson in what happens when the American people actually get involved in their political system and tell their leaders what they want, not in our unwillingness to kill eachother.

Owen Robertson:

You weren't because most citizens only want guns because they're afraid. It may be subconscious, but it's there. You're afraid of burglars, rapists, kidnappers, and ne'er-do-wells. You think that the gun will save you. I'm not psychoanalyzing the American public, but I've watched your "news". CNN, MSNBC, and FOX fear-monger like it's going out of style.

Afraid, no, just smart enough to know there are bad people in this world. I do not live in fear, I enjoy life. I also don't think my gun will save me, I only hope it will should a situation arise. I don't know if it ever will, but I will not be leaving this world on my knees begging for my life.

Also, watching our news isn't really a good argument, they're pretty much publish whatever they want and often get facts wrong. They are quite biased and are more likely to print stories that will help their cause, whatever it may be.

Owen Robertson:

I'll leave you with some math. Statistically, you are more likely to get shot the more time spent in proximity to a gun. If you don't have one, your chances are slim. If you own one, the chance increases. If you're a cop, soldier, firearms instructor or gunsmith, your chances are significantly higher due to the time you spend around firearms.

Just like if you drive a car, you're more likely to be in a car accident, or if you swim a lot, you're more likely to drown. But still, some people live their whole live without ever being in a car accident or drowning or being shot. Also, statistically, shooting sports/hunting is one of safest hobbies to have.

http://nssf.org/PDF/research/Hunting%20Safe%20Activity%20Chart%20NSSF%20branded.pdf

Raesvelg:

Biosophilogical:

The second bit, what you've basically said is that guns are symbolic protection? At which point, you might as well start a market of water-guns that are indistinguishable from the real thing (apart from the lack of bullet-shooting), because simply the threat of a gun is enough. And besides, saying "I have a bomb, but I won't use it, I just want it for symbolic self-defense" is just insane. If your intention is to use a gun then you shouldn't have it (because you risk the safety of everyone around you), and if your intention is to simply have the 'threat' of a gun, but not use it, then you don't need a real weapon in the first place (just a very convincing fake, maybe a tazer-in-disguise), neither of which is an argument in favour of firearms as self-defense.

Fallacy.

If everyone is carrying fake guns, then the notion of symbolic protection is meaningless; criminals will know the guns are fake and rob/rape/kill you anyway.

It's the the sight of a gun-shaped object that repels a criminal. They're not some weird sort of vampire. It's the prospect of getting shot that frightens criminals. If the faux-firearms are not dangerous, they're no threat.

If you want to defend yourself with a gun, you have to have one that works, and be willing to use it.

No you don't, and that's my point. If your statistic is that most uses of firearms are as symbolic protection (you draw it, they go "Ah, a gun!", problem solved), then you only need to to look real. It's not like I'm saying "Start a profitable, well-publicised business for fake guns, and make it so everyone has one and cirminals realise this. You don't even need laws that allow you to carry guns. If a mugger (or rapist, or whatever) sees someone pull a 'gun', do you really think they are going to think "Oh, it's illegal for them to have that, therefore it is fake."? No, they're going to go "Oh shit, they have a gun, I was not expecting that, RUNRUNRUNRUN!". If you then had a taser that looked like a gun (or pepper spray, or something else that would actually do something if you used it), you wouldn't be stuffed if they tried to mug/rape/kill you regardless of your 'gun'. Ta-da, problem freakin' solved, fallacy my hairy, white body.

Biosophilogical:
]No you don't, and that's my point. If your statistic is that most uses of firearms are as symbolic protection (you draw it, they go "Ah, a gun!", problem solved), then you only need to to look real. It's not like I'm saying "Start a profitable, well-publicised business for fake guns, and make it so everyone has one and cirminals realise this. You don't even need laws that allow you to carry guns. If a mugger (or rapist, or whatever) sees someone pull a 'gun', do you really think they are going to think "Oh, it's illegal for them to have that, therefore it is fake."? No, they're going to go "Oh shit, they have a gun, I was not expecting that, RUNRUNRUNRUN!". If you then had a taser that looked like a gun (or pepper spray, or something else that would actually do something if you used it), you wouldn't be stuffed if they tried to mug/rape/kill you regardless of your 'gun'. Ta-da, problem freakin' solved, fallacy my hairy, white body.

No, I'm afraid the idea of fake guns just doesn't pan out.

Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint.

Defensive coloration only works if a reasonably high percentage of the creatures that display it are actually poisonous. And even then, you'll run into predators that are willing to take the chance under sufficiently dire circumstances.

A line of fake guns is only successful if there are other people out there carrying real guns. And, periodically at least, using them.

A fake gun containing pepper spray and/or a taser drops you into a totally different category. If your bluff is called, yes, you do at least have some recourse other than squirting water in the assailant's face, but you've also substantially upped the stakes.

If you run into someone who isn't deterred by the threat display, you're just substantially raised your chances of the encounter ending in you getting murdered, and if there's more than one assailant, a taser will do you precisely zero good, and pepper spray is, frankly, manageable for someone who really wants to see you dead. It also has a surprisingly high chance of backfiring depending on wind conditions; I've seen that happen in a rather humorous demonstration.

And again, if everyone carries fake guns, then guns are no deterrent. Hence, fallacy.

Raesvelg:

Biosophilogical:
]No you don't, and that's my point. If your statistic is that most uses of firearms are as symbolic protection (you draw it, they go "Ah, a gun!", problem solved), then you only need to to look real. It's not like I'm saying "Start a profitable, well-publicised business for fake guns, and make it so everyone has one and cirminals realise this. You don't even need laws that allow you to carry guns. If a mugger (or rapist, or whatever) sees someone pull a 'gun', do you really think they are going to think "Oh, it's illegal for them to have that, therefore it is fake."? No, they're going to go "Oh shit, they have a gun, I was not expecting that, RUNRUNRUNRUN!". If you then had a taser that looked like a gun (or pepper spray, or something else that would actually do something if you used it), you wouldn't be stuffed if they tried to mug/rape/kill you regardless of your 'gun'. Ta-da, problem freakin' solved, fallacy my hairy, white body.

No, I'm afraid the idea of fake guns just doesn't pan out.

Look at it from an evolutionary standpoint.

Defensive coloration only works if a reasonably high percentage of the creatures that display it are actually poisonous. And even then, you'll run into predators that are willing to take the chance under sufficiently dire circumstances.

A line of fake guns is only successful if there are other people out there carrying real guns. And, periodically at least, using them.

A fake gun containing pepper spray and/or a taser drops you into a totally different category. If your bluff is called, yes, you do at least have some recourse other than squirting water in the assailant's face, but you've also substantially upped the stakes.

If you run into someone who isn't deterred by the threat display, you're just substantially raised your chances of the encounter ending in you getting murdered, and if there's more than one assailant, a taser will do you precisely zero good, and pepper spray is, frankly, manageable for someone who really wants to see you dead. It also has a surprisingly high chance of backfiring depending on wind conditions; I've seen that happen in a rather humorous demonstration.

And again, if everyone carries fake guns, then guns are no deterrent. Hence, fallacy.

I'm not saying "Everyone carries fake guns". I'm saying that if your wish is self-defense, then you don't actually need a gun. I mean, if you are worried about authenticity, you could have a real gun, just no bullets. And the thing about gun-fear is you don't need them to be legal weapons. All you need is those 'criminal elements' that apparently have 6 kajillion guns (or more!) to have guns, and the fear is there (they would become scared because they know that they, or other criminals could have guns, so you could too, which would be even more intimidating if only the baddest of the bad had them, because what mugger would risk pissing off the biggest bads around by killing you?). And if criminals didn't have guns, then sure, the intimidation wouldn't work, but criminals wouldn't have guns!

So either the fear is there because they have them (in which case fake-guns would be more than enough for most scenarios anyway[1]), or they don't have them!

Whichever way you spin it though, the point still stands that while defending yourself at the expense of your assailant is fine, defending yourself at the expense of innocent people (relative to your situation at any rate) is not. Fake guns are a happy medium that have the symbolic strength of a real gun, yet are a perfectly acceptable and safe method of defending yourself (given that you aren't going to accidentally shoot an innocent with a something that only looks like a gun).

[1] And if there is more than one assailant, so that a taser wouldn't work, opening fire might just get you killed anyway, and if it is only one that wouldn't be deterred by a real gun-threat, what makes you think they wouldn't just shoot you for drawing a weapon anyway?

Biosophilogical:
I'm not saying "Everyone carries fake guns". I'm saying that if your wish is self-defense, then you don't actually need a gun. I mean, if you are worried about authenticity, you could have a real gun, just no bullets. And the thing about gun-fear is you don't need them to be legal weapons. All you need is those 'criminal elements' that apparently have 6 kajillion guns (or more!) to have guns, and the fear is there (they would become scared because they know that they, or other criminals could have guns, so you could too, which would be even more intimidating if only the baddest of the bad had them, because what mugger would risk pissing off the biggest bads around by killing you?). And if criminals didn't have guns, then sure, the intimidation wouldn't work, but criminals wouldn't have guns!

So either the fear is there because they have them (in which case fake-guns would be more than enough for most scenarios anyway[1]), or they don't have them!

Whichever way you spin it though, the point still stands that while defending yourself at the expense of your assailant is fine, defending yourself at the expense of innocent people (relative to your situation at any rate) is not. Fake guns are a happy medium that have the symbolic strength of a real gun, yet are a perfectly acceptable and safe method of defending yourself (given that you aren't going to accidentally shoot an innocent with a something that only looks like a gun).

My God, these are like the ravings of a madman.

Bluffing is not self defense. Bluffing is what you do when you're not capable of defending yourself. Just the same as being unarmed, you can only HOPE your assailant decides no to hurt you.

[1] And if there is more than one assailant, so that a taser wouldn't work, opening fire might just get you killed anyway, and if it is only one that wouldn't be deterred by a real gun-threat, what makes you think they wouldn't just shoot you for drawing a weapon anyway?

Biosophilogical:
I'm not saying "Everyone carries fake guns". I'm saying that if your wish is self-defense, then you don't actually need a gun. I mean, if you are worried about authenticity, you could have a real gun, just no bullets. And the thing about gun-fear is you don't need them to be legal weapons. All you need is those 'criminal elements' that apparently have 6 kajillion guns (or more!) to have guns, and the fear is there (they would become scared because they know that they, or other criminals could have guns, so you could too, which would be even more intimidating if only the baddest of the bad had them, because what mugger would risk pissing off the biggest bads around by killing you?). And if criminals didn't have guns, then sure, the intimidation wouldn't work, but criminals wouldn't have guns!

Ugh.

You're arguing the free rider problem at this point, the idea that since other people have real guns, you can get buy with a fake gun and just use it in threat displays.

The problem remains. Enough people with real guns have to issue real threats in order to cover your fake firearm and fake threat. If too many people start doing the same thing that you're doing, the system collapses and no threats are taken seriously.

Even in your fantasy world where criminals instantly buy into the idea of a fake gun being real even if guns are extremely hard to acquire legally, the fact of the matter remains that not all criminals are terminally stupid, and your fake guns would receive a fair amount of publicity.

Criminals would figure it out.

And, while it apparently entertains you to utilize the footnote feature, it's best not to put portions of your argument there.

Biosophilogical:
And if there is more than one assailant, so that a taser wouldn't work, opening fire might just get you killed anyway, and if it is only one that wouldn't be deterred by a real gun-threat, what makes you think they wouldn't just shoot you for drawing a weapon anyway?

This returns to the statement that if you want to carry a firearm for self-defense, you need one that works and one that you're willing to use. Your hypothetical fake-gun/taser instantly ups the stakes to lethal force, and if you're faking that, yes, you might well get killed.

But an actual pistol can shoot more than once.

And, as for a single assailant who is apparently crazy enough to push the issue on someone who's got the drop on him, that's why you shoot them. This isn't rocket science.

Guns used in threat displays are generally not used when someone has a gun to your head. They're used in response to threatening language, threats with a knife or other melee weapon, threats with a gun that is not directly pointed at the potential victim.

Trying to pull a gun on someone who has one pointed at something important is a really excellent way to get yourself killed, but the fact remains that most criminals don't really want to escalate the situation into that kill-or-be-killed level. Muggings are taken in stride by the local constabulary, murders typically less so.

Raytan941:
Imagine that if you own or work with or around guns your more likely to be shot, I salute you sir on your amazing powers of deduction. Hey, do you think if you drive a motor vehicle on a regular basis your more likely to be involved in a car accident then if you never drive or ride in a motor vehicle? How about if you have unprotected sex? More likely or less likely to contract an STD? What do you think the likely hood is that if you jump in a pool your going to get wet vs staying outside of the pool?

You made your point, but made it rather dickishly. Sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

spartan231490:

None of which will reliably decrease your chances of being injured or killed in an attack. The only weapon that does is a firearm.

I was never arguing that less-than-lethal are a ore successful alternative. I was correcting you on your use of the term less-than-lethal. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

Devoneaux:
I'm not saying it works, mostly due to the fact that ours is a society that has grown rather lethargic in recent years. Voter turnout is exceptionally low, as is the average citizen's involvement in politics. I only gave you it's purpose, nothing more. And honestly, what you suggest about "Murdering people" Over SOPA? No need, because it didn't pass. SOPA was a lesson in what happens when the American people actually get involved in their political system and tell their leaders what they want, not in our unwillingness to kill eachother.

I was attempting to devalue your "empower the citizens" quote with an irrational example. That was the "murdering people". I'm not sure which side you're on. I'm in favour of your freedom to purchase and use firearms recreationally, but I see a large amount of handgun deaths and wonder what can be done about it. Regulation, faster ambulances, and free bulletproof vests come to mind. What do you say?

PZF:
[Afraid, no, just smart enough to know there are bad people in this world. I do not live in fear, I enjoy life. I also don't think my gun will save me, I only hope it will should a situation arise. I don't know if it ever will, but I will not be leaving this world on my knees begging for my life.

Also, watching our news isn't really a good argument, they're pretty much publish whatever they want and often get facts wrong. They are quite biased and are more likely to print stories that will help their cause, whatever it may be.

Two things:
1) I'm not sure if it's machizmo or pride but that begging for your life on your knees point is unthinkable to me. I wouldn't go to my knees unless beaten, and wouldn't beg unless someone I care about was in danger. Gun or not.
2) The problem is, most people don't take cable news with a grain of salt. They don't know how to read between the lines and so they hear "Drones flying over Americas farmers?! Obama is evil!" and don't even stop to think for themselves.

Owen Robertson:

spartan231490:

None of which will reliably decrease your chances of being injured or killed in an attack. The only weapon that does is a firearm.

I was never arguing that less-than-lethal are a ore successful alternative. I was correcting you on your use of the term less-than-lethal. Perhaps that wasn't clear.

I wasn't necessarily saying why you shouldn't use a less-than-lethal alternative, I was pointing out why defending yourself with anything other than a gun is insufficient. I was addressing all the common "alternate options" I see commonly mentioned, not just less than lethal ones.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here