|
Texas school district to let teachers carry guns (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by bigsnail
taken from someone who posted in this thread...
no, he never assumed that in the first place. We all know that the Nazis were responsible for igniting the war. Oppressive? Germany was a great place to live in if you were not a Jew.
learn to read douche |
Eh, my bad.
Apologies.
It's 2:00am here and I've been up since 7:00am.
Reading over that passage again, my point still stands that the tangents mentioned were and still are relevant to the discussion. |
|
|
| bigsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
Eh, my bad.
Apologies.
It's 2:00am here and I've been up since 7:00am.
Reading over that passage, my point still stands that the tangents mentioned were and still are relevant to the discussion. |
yea, your right. jus saying, nazis did make a cameo in this thread :toothless |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beat Blog
1. Do you own a gun yourself? |
Nope. Because....
| quote: | | 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? |
Nope.
| quote: | | 3. Have you ever been mugged or attacked for no specific reason? |
Nope.
| quote: | | 4. Would you feel okay with shooting someone, even in self-defence? |
Yes. Killing someone would disturb me greatly, I am sure, but shooting someone who I thought had intent to seriously harm me would not.
| quote: | | 5. Do you actually believe in the "self-defence" argument you've been expounding... |
Yes.
| quote: | | 6. Do you honestly think that a citizen with a firearm will have much chance against a thug with a gun? |
Depends on the citizen, the thug, and the situation, of course. Not all thugs with weapons are willing to use them, preferring to carry them simply as a means of intimidation that will almost certainly be effective against any sane unarmed person.
| quote: | | Any attempt to defend themselves will most likely end in tragedy for both parties (i.e a shootout) |
This is not true. There are thousands of defensive uses of guns every year. Certainly there are situations that end in shootouts as well, which is unfortunate.
| quote: | | 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? |
Depends on the criminal, of course.
| quote: | | 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? |
As said above, I live in a place where I do not feel unsafe. But plenty of people do live in such places, and I have nothing against them wanting to have a gun for protection.
Another note: why does it matter with regard to self-defense whether a thug wants to steal your stuff or hurt you, anyway? It seems you think that a violation of a person's rights should be hunky-dory with him as long as he can walk unscathed, that he should be polite and submissive to the little trying to use him as a personal money chest lest he actually try to defend himself or his property and get shot. And no, before you bring up my "American materialism" or some such canard, the point is not just the stuff that gets taken; the point is that the thief thinks that he should get to do whatever he wants with people regardless of any law, and in your version of things people should simply lie down and enable him to do so.
Such an attitude is alien to me and to most other Americans. |
|
|
| Zild |
| I know if I were a criminal (like a cop or a mobster) I would want firearms to be illegal. |
|
|
| Aquadyne |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
I'm with pkc here. ing American south-KKK and all the crazy white-trash cowboys lol. |
I'm a European that lives in Chicago and I support that right more fervently than some of those crazy white-trash cowboys in the south.
Let's not stereotype. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
In simple words, if children and teenagers observe their own teachers carry guns they could easily deduce that gun carriage "must be a correct thing to do" and that carrying a gun "For the purposes of self-defense is correct". |
Seems like that's already happened based on a good number of the responses in this thread.
This is an interesting article:
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home (New England Journal of Medicine)
Also:
http://www.guninformation.org/
(the arguments are rather crudely presented and outrageously biased, but the facts are well researched and sound) |
|
|
| Zild |
| Probably better than getting the idea that you can rely on others for safety. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Probably better than getting the idea that you can rely on others for safety. |
Man, you don't get it.
Ideas such as the ones you propose increse the risk of violent acts.
Imagine some innocent guy entering another one's property by mistake. The other guy who is a crazy dumb white-trash cowboy gets his rifle and shoots him straight between the eyes. When the police arrives for investigation the killer confesses:
"I was sure that he was a thief since he entered my property. I shot him 'cause the police does nothing these days. Its probably better than relying on others for safety...".
Similarly children entering gangs and such would have low moral values in relation to gun-usage and violent behaviour. Since they freely observe that their teaches carry guns and that "every free citizen of America is entitled to gun carriage and usage", then using guns is normal and not that of a big deal. Teenagers or older adults who were brought-up in such environments would be more likely to start shooting people.
These are just some possible scenarios out of many others that result from ideas such as:
1) The idea of free gun-carriage is correct (positive attitudes towards selective violent crime within some "specific contexts").
2) The actual availability of guns is high.
Some people have already responsed with scientific articles that support such statements. There are even "natural social experiments" which support these arguments.
See Europe's (and possibly Canada's) low homicide rates, and figure-out the relation of low violence-homicides and the "idea of gun-free policies that teach how to Rely on others for safety". Yeah go figure... |
|
|
| Zild |
| I think it is you who don't understand, but that is what I've been saying this whole time. Everyone understands the numbers. Of course if there are more guns somewhere there will be more deaths in that area from them. We ing know that now let's move past that part ok. What I'm telling you is I don't give a if our homicide rate per 100000 is one hundredth of a percent higher like that graph that someone posted shows. Since the beginning of time humans have been making and carrying weapons, but now all of a sudden we aren't responsible enough? |
|
|
| DJ Mikey Mike |
| They don't call them the most ignorant nation in the world for nothing. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I think it is you who don't understand, but that is what I've been saying this whole time. Everyone understands the numbers. Of course if there are more guns somewhere there will be more deaths in that area from them. We ing know that now let's move past that part ok. What I'm telling you is I don't give a if our homicide rate per 100000 is one hundredth of a percent higher like that graph that someone posted shows. Since the beginning of time humans have been making and carrying weapons, but now all of a sudden we aren't responsible enough? |
What do you mean you don't "Care about the numbers"? These numbers are an index/say that there is something ing terribly wrong with your country buddy and that spreading violent ideas and encouraging gun-usage is not going to get things better! Is it that hard to understand?
And what is this "...since the beginning of time humans always done X thing, so X thing is right" argument, this is a fallacy "appeal to tradition". Humans were always engaging in rape, war and pillaging are rape, war and pillaging correct? |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I think it is you who don't understand, but that is what I've been saying this whole time. Everyone understands the numbers. Of course if there are more guns somewhere there will be more deaths in that area from them. We ing know that now let's move past that part ok. What I'm telling you is I don't give a if our homicide rate per 100000 is one hundredth of a percent higher like that graph that someone posted shows. Since the beginning of time humans have been making and carrying weapons, but now all of a sudden we aren't responsible enough? |
That's a complete contradiction.
You're saying Americans are responsible enough to carry weapons for protection, even if it means sacrificing a few more deaths per capita.
Doesn't a few more people being murdered per capita mean that the self-defence is not working? Unless of course you have evidence that these extra deaths attributed to readily available guns are all "bad guys".
Regarding "being responsible" enough to carry weapons, no, people are ing not! How do you think 15 year old kids get their hands on their parents' gun and shoot up their school? It's because the parents are too irresponsible to lock the gun up properly.
How does a criminal steal a gun from a house? Same reason.
Besides, comparing modern humans to those "throughout the ages" is ridiculous, because humanity has only been (relativelely) at peace with discrete nations and defined borders for but a blink of our existence, only recently.
There is no need for ordinary citizens to carry weapons anymore, because there are no maurauding Saxons, Romans or the like.
Perhaps if you lived in the Gaza strip, or if America had hostile borders with Canada and Mexico, then yeah, pack all the guns you want and make sure your citizens can defend themselves against any maurading enemies, but it's ridiculous that citizens should feel the need to kill or grievously injure one another, even in defence.
Obviously that doesn't apply to the police force. |
|
|
|
|
