quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog If you got rid of all firearms, the need to defend yourself with one would disappear.

This is simply false. Even without firearms, people being attacked are quite often not on equal terms with their assailants. This may be because the attacker brought some friends along, is overwhelmingly bigger, has a knife, an illegal gun, or whatever, but it is not hard to imagine situations where, without a gun or similarly effective means of defense, a person is going to face a choice of submit to the criminal and let him have his way with you or face severe injury and possibly death.

Some people would rather be armed so that they can resist thugs rather than submit to them and meekly await the arrival of the police while desperately hoping the attacker decides to spare their life. This should really not be that tough to understand.

I am sure you think that, given how guns get misused in the U.S., the negative aspects outweigh the opportunity for self-defense afforded by firearms. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on that and call it a difference of values.

As far as the rest of the stuff, I am not interested in going over the same points again.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne You're not really buttressing your argument here. The state isn't destabilized by gun ownership. To the contrary, the state is destabilized by malignant forces in the government which firearm ownership keeps in check to some extent. Thus, firearm ownership is a stabilizing force within a state.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Certainly an army of average gun owners would stand little chance. But in the rather fanciful scenario of an oppressive U.S. government trying to round up and kill some set of civilians en masse, there would probably be at least some rebellion by current and former members of military and police, who could provide tactical and weapons knowledge necessary for resistance.

I can't believe you're resorting to making up such fictituous scenarios which let's face it, happen very rarely (if ever?) in western society, or do you group the USA with 3rd world countries where the governments are so oppressive and can explode at any time?
The "what if?" argument is stupid and redundant and shows just how low in the barrel you have to scoop to get any sort of argument to support your case. While the rest of us have empirical data and evidence (some of which I've already posted) to back up our points, you're resorting to worse case scenarios. That's not gonna cut it.
I would quickly retort but Aquadyne seems to have contradicted himself and explained it perfectly:

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne And what makes you think that US soldiers would execute that kind of order? And what makes you think that sort of thing wouldn't make your "average American" even more inclined to resist as much as possible?

Well done. You've done a complete 180 and then in the same post done another 180:

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne PKC, Since you live in Australia, I would actually advise you to loosen some gun laws seeing the problems that you have... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia Might as well just start legalizing them. At least you would give responsible citizens a chance to defend themselves too. For now, I wouldn't worry about a malevolent government trying to rob the citizenry of its rights since Kevin Rudd doesn't seem to be that clever. As it is, I bid you a good night.

Apart from the fact that it's painfully obvious how your intrepretation of data is well let's say....non-existent, 85% of a tiny number is still a tiny number. If...

quote:

The number of guns stolen has fallen dramatically from 4,000 per year[16] to 664 in a six-month period in 2005[30]. This is because of efforts by police and shooting bodies to encourage secure storage of guns. Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses. Only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year, and while only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered, only about 3% will afterward be connected to an actual crime.

...and 85% is related to murders with unregistered guns, let's say we take 664 stolen guns, plus let's throw in a hypothetical and round that out to 3000 unregistered guns. I doubt that even 20% of those would be used for murder (apparently only about 3% actually)and 85% of that is a small number. Comparatively, the US has FAR FAR FAAAAAR more deaths and your guns are registered. I can't be bothered to be honest, but if you took the time you would be able to find exact figures and they would be drastically lower both in number and relative percentage in every other western nation with strict gun laws than in the US.

ps. Take careful notice of what's in bold

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

Firearm registration is not required in Georgia

rapist

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz While the rest of us have empirical data and evidence (some of which I've already posted) to back up our points, you're resorting to worse case scenarios.

For the most part, statistics are beside the point in this debate. All the statistics tell us is that the number of guns correlate with the number of gun deaths. Well, duh.

The real difference is one of values. The non-Americans in this thread think that stripping the citizenry of truly effective personal defense against criminals is worth it if it means a significant reduction in gun deaths. The Americans (and Aquadyne) are arguing that while the many gun deaths are unfortunate, death-reduction does not justify making people helpless against any thug who brings enough friends or carries a big enough knife. This is a debate about values, which means that no minds are likely to be changed here in spite of dozens of statistical tables showing what everyone already knows, that guns are indeed dangerous and used for violent crime.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is simply false. Even without firearms, people being attacked are quite often not on equal terms with their assailants. This may be because the attacker brought some friends along, is overwhelmingly bigger, has a knife, an illegal gun, or whatever, but it is not hard to imagine situations where, without a gun or similarly effective means of defense, a person is going to face a choice of submit to the criminal and let him have his way with you or face severe injury and possibly death. Some people would rather be armed so that they can resist thugs rather than submit to them and meekly await the arrival of the police while desperately hoping the attacker decides to spare their life. This should really not be that tough to understand. I am sure you think that, given how guns get misused in the U.S., the negative aspects outweigh the opportunity for self-defense afforded by firearms. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on that and call it a difference of values. As far as the rest of the stuff, I am not interested in going over the same points again.

And? If you have a gun legally, chances are they have a gun legally too, or at least find it real easy to get a hold of one. So, even though you have a gun, the assailant AND his friends also have guns. You stand no chance.

On top of that, not only can you now not run (an option which you have if they have knives only) or call for help, if you get into a fight you will die. A gunshot wound will do a lot more damage than a knife wound.

Oh and on top of that, your death or injury has now left yet another gun on the street. Namely yours, which they are free to take at any time of your twitching and possibly lifeless body.

Oh hold on, here's something else. The average person has no military training. They may think they can defend themselves but chances are they will freeze up.
Ask any soldier who has been in war how training can never truly prepare you for war. Go ahead.
Your armed forces are examples of this themselves. You have all the training in the world yet all of your greenhorns lack experience and they die by the bucketload. Yes, this is partly due to your idiot cannonfodder tactics which you have always used, but also due to inexperience.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz And? If you have a gun legally, chances are they have a gun legally too, or at least find it real easy to get a hold of one. So, even though you have a gun, the assailant AND his friends also have guns. You stand no chance.

This is always a possibility. People who think gun ownership should be allowed are willing to take that chance if it means they can have access to an effective means of self-defense.

But you in your superior wisdom and enlightened thought know better, right? Anyone who thinks differently must surely be a Neanderthal.

Unga unga.

Not at all but look at Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ as examples of why our thinking is better than yours.

Maybe that does make us more evolved? Perhaps someone should write a paper on it then...

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Maybe that does make us more evolved?

Of course it does! Now can you just leave us American primitives alone about guns and let us waste away in our primitive, gun-laden lifestyle?

We would, but sadly you effect the world too much so we have no choice but to live with you. You're kind of like an annoying sibling. We love you, yet sometimes we really wish you didn't exist

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

Seems like a good idea; in order to get the most benefit out of idiots wielding guns, stick them in a room full of idiot-children so that they can kill off their own kind's offspring before most of them have the chance to reproduce.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz We would, but sadly you effect the world too much so we have no choice but to live with you. You're kind of like a retarded cousin. We love you, yet sometimes we really wish you didn't exist

Fixed.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence self-defence

quote:

Screamed ecstatically and gleefully by everyone living outside of the USA Our countries are safe, we don't feel threatened on the streets!

Seriously though JBJ, a few questions for you:

1. Do you own a gun yourself?

2. Your city doesn't even have a population over 2 million, which, in my experience, is hardly enough to foster the kind of mass "random" crime and street muggings you are talking about. Do you feel threatened in parts of the city?

3. Have you ever been mugged or attacked for no specific reason?

4. Would you feel okay with shooting someone, even in self-defence?

5. Do you actually believe in the "self-defence" argument you've been expounding, or are you doing it as a matter of principle to prove that not all people with a "pro gun" stance are idiots?

6. Do you honestly think that a citizen with a firearm will have much chance against a thug with a gun? In most cases, a thug will enter a situation with the intent or a readiness to cause harm (i.e jump out from behind a corner), and will hence have the upper hand by having a weapon pointed at you, as opposed to an honest citizen who is reactionary. Any attempt to defend themselves will most likely end in tragedy for both parties (i.e a shootout), rather than the criminal making off with the victim's wallet, as is the usual aim, while the victim remains unharmed. You've mentioned several times that without a weapon you will be "at the mercy" of criminals. Do you think that their aim is to hurt you, or to take your possessions and/or money?

7. If self-defence is so important to you, why are you not leaving the house wearing a bullet-proof vest, which is the most practical form of defence, rather than a gun, which is a weapon?

Last edited by Domesticated on Aug-18-2008 at 11:49