NBVegita Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 From past posts of mine: "As for the crazy bit, !@#$%^&* there are a lot of things we do that could cause a lot of deaths if we decided to go crazy. imagine taking your car on a tour of the sidewalks in NYC during the middle of the day. Or !@#$%^&* get a full tank of gas and blow up your car. !@#$%^&* you can even google dozens of ways to make strong explosives with household chemicals. Or make a pipe bomb. Car bomb. Anything you want. If we didn't have guns what would be the next thing people would jump on? Do you think those columbine kids would have brought knives to school? Or would they have made some homemade bombs? I mean !@#$%^&* bombs are so easy you make that if you fill a coffee can a little over half full with fresh !@#$%^&*. Yes I said !@#$%^&*. Seal the top tight with a good fuse. The Hydrogen sulfide emitted from the feces will then create a literal !@#$%^&* bomb. The more you heat the feces the more gas you can emit. Once the fuse hits the gas it will explode sending poisonous shrapnel in all directions. Obviously to varying degrees dependent on the amount of H2S in the can. (above example is just a small insight into the simplicity of creating a bomb, although just a small bomb) These people would simply use bombs not guns. " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1442617,00.html Yes obviously the evil guns are causing people to kill each other. The naivety of the topic astounds me. Is it better for me to get mugged or me to kill the mugger? It is better for your wife to get raped? How about your daughter? What if she's 6? "A Time to Kill" anyone? Also if you're willing to give up everything on you to a mugger, chances are he's threatening your life with a LETHAL WEAPON. If some guy comes up to you on the street with no weapons and says "Hey give me your wallet or I'll beat you to a pulp", you're not going to hand over your wallet.
Bak Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 they DID use pipebombs and propane bombs in columbine. The guns were what did the killing (probably because the bombs they had to make themselves whereas the guns are professionally manufactured and don't malfunction as much). If you really cared about your family you'd be concerned that keeping at gun in the home increases the chance of your kids committing suicide by 500% (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/7/467) Also if you're willing to give up everything on you to a mugger, chances are he's threatening your life with a LETHAL WEAPON. If some guy comes up to you on the street with no weapons and says "Hey give me your wallet or I'll beat you to a pulp", you're not going to hand over your wallet.Still, he's not going to shoot me after he takes my wallet. The trade off is my wallet or his life (and pulling a gun on someone with a lethal weapon may risk my life as well). I don't know who you think these pedophile rapists are, but they're certainly not going to come into your home and go through you to kidnap your 6 year old. If I were to do it I'd wait till she's alone like at a bus stop and try to entice her with candy or something. Unless your suggesting 6 year olds should carry guns? Or do you shoot anyone on sight that talks to your kid?
NBVegita Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 Still, he's not going to shoot me after he takes my wallet. The trade off is my wallet or his life (and pulling a gun on someone with a lethal weapon may risk my life as well). The only way you're going to give up your possesions is if you seriously believe your life to be in danger. Or if you are extremely non-confrontational. If you really cared about your family you'd be concerned that keeping at gun in the home increases the chance of your kids committing suicide by 500% That is a completely false statement. There is no inference that the presence of the gun resulted in the suicide. In fact you can't even begin to imply that if there was not a gun in the house that they would not have killed themselves by other means. A true statement would be: If you really cared about your family you'd be concerned that keeping at gun in the home increases the chance of your kids committing suicide with a gun by 500% I don't know who you think these pedophile rapists are, but they're certainly not going to come into your home and go through you to kidnap your 6 year old. Most rapes are committed in a home or apartment. That is an easily googleable fact. I'll follow up more later and post sources if you can't google.
Bak Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 The only way you're going to give up your possessions is if you seriously believe your life to be in danger.yes, my life is in danger if I don't cooperate. If I do cooperate I lose my wallet and can except to live. With a gun in the picture, I get to keep my wallet but the criminal loses his life. The trade off is my wallet vs the life of the criminal. A true statement would be:If you really cared about your family you'd be concerned that keeping at gun in the home increases the chance of your kids committing suicide with a gun by 500%The study I posted was concerned with raw suicides. Where do they say they only looked at gun-related suicides?
NBVegita Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 I did not thouroughly read the article the first time as I was in a rush. Now: "Matching controls were identified for 99 percent of these subjects, producing 438 matched pairs. Univariate analyses revealed that the case subjects were more likely than the controls to have lived alone, taken prescribed psychotropic medication, been arrested, abused drugs or alcohol, or not graduated from high school. After we controlled for these characteristics through conditional logistic regression, the presence of one or more guns in the home was found to be !@#$%^&*ociated with an increased risk of suicide" That would be an argument that people with the aforementioned conditions and cir!@#$%^&*stances not to have guns. Using conditional logistic regression instead of unconditional logistic regression is just a simple way to manipulate data into stating what you want it to.
NBVegita Posted March 20, 2008 Report Posted March 20, 2008 yes, my life is in danger if I don't cooperate. If I do cooperate I lose my wallet and can except to live. With a gun in the picture, I get to keep my wallet but the criminal loses his life. The trade off is my wallet vs the life of the criminal. And don't you think it's mildly likely that if the criminal thinks HIS/HER life is in danger, they would be more apt to cooperate with leaving you alone? Why is it that you think that the only way to dissolve a situation if a gun is involved is to shoot it? Just the implication of such is sheer ignorance.
JDS Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 ok, why dont we just go to the source and kill desperation all together and rid the world of our false 'ranks' (middleclass, lowerclass, upperclass) perhaps if we were all equal we wouldnt have this problem ^ unprobable solution, but interesting thought.. otherwise if we are to remain unequal, there will always be violence.. but make guns illigal and unatainable and we solve the death by gun issue.. sure people are still going to get killed, but at least not as a result of a gun as much..
»D1st0rt Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
ThunderJam Posted March 21, 2008 Author Report Posted March 21, 2008 freak i didnt know you live that close to me. I believe the dc handgun ban allows guns in homes. However it requires the gun be dismantled, ammo be stored separately, and some other crazy junk. To the point where its like... why even have a gun then? If someone came into your house, you wouldnt be able to put the thing together intime to defend yourself. As to pointing out the crime rate in america. DC Crime rate > everywhere else. It's hard to understand unless you live near there, but its nuts. ail my mom has also been mugged there.
»D1st0rt Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 I believe Baltimore's crime rate is higher edit: according to http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm for 2007, it is in 2nd place behind Detroit for cities of 500,000+
Bak Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 guns are the easiest way to kill people, others or yourself. If I want to commit suicide, a gun is the easiest way. If I want to go on a shooting rampage, a gun is the easiest way. I can't drive an SUV into my school and kill 20 people (incidentally, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/...ent_7823467.htm ). And don't you think it's mildly likely that if the criminal thinks HIS/HER life is in danger, they would be more apt to cooperate with leaving you alone? She doesn't know if I have a gun until she's made up her mind to rob me. It only works if everyone is carrying a gun.
SeVeR Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 It only works if everyone is carrying a gun. Exactly. Oh, and see what good it'll do to pull out your gun to "defend yourself" with one pointed at you. Actually don't try it, i don't want anyone here to get shot.
Bak Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Using conditional logistic regression instead of unconditional logistic regression is just a simple way to manipulate data into stating what you want it to.explain
NBVegita Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 It only works if everyone is carrying a gun. lol? How so? How is me defending myself from a mugger dependent on you owning a gun? I'm not arguing that everyone should have a gun. In fact I'm all for strict gun regulations so that only the most stalwart of citizens can carry a firearm. But I am for the belief that I should be allowed to carry a firearm if I fit that criteria. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That is very true. Just look back through the history of America, when you outlaw something, the only people you're cutting off from it are the honest people. And those honest people are not the ones who are killing people. I fully support the law in Texas where if someone is attemtping to rob your property you have the right to shoot them. If a stranger, whom obviously has some form of malicious intent, is on my property where my fiance lives (kids too someday) you bet your !@#$%^&* I'm not going to think twice about shooting him. There are too many crazy people in the world. From another post I made: "Me for example, would not be here if not for my mom having a gun. When I was 5 a drunk man broke into the house. My dad was at work. My mom immediately ran and got her .357 magnum, and the guy was still hesitant to leave even after seeing the !@#$%^&* monster of a gun. I had called 911, as soon as he broke in, which took 45 minutes to show up. Eventually the guy made the evening news because after he left our house he broke into another house and killed the entire family with the hunting knife he had hidden in his belt. The funny thing is that we even called the news and told them our story, and aparently it wasn't good enough to make the news, even though it was a wonderful story on how a gun saved the lives a mother and her two children. And do you think we're the first or only? Guns save lives every day, but there's no coverage or statistic for that. " Oh, and see what good it'll do to pull out your gun to "defend yourself" with one pointed at you. So according to sever we should ban all forms of self defense because ultimately if a criminal has a gun, if you pull a weapon, of any sort, on said criminal you have a higher likely hood of being killed. Even on a crude level, as I grew up in a really bad area, why do you think all of these "thugs" carry guns? Self-defense. If someone knows or believes that you are carrying a gun, they are less apt to acost you for the simple reason that it exponentially increases THEIR risk of being killed. Criminals go for easy targets. !@#$%^&* there have been two incidents in the past 2 weeks nationally where + year old women fended off muggers with the pistols they kept in the purses. But of course it's easier to prove your point when you fall to the extremist mentality that if a gun is involved in any situation by either side, it must be used. Bak: I'll explain later this afternoon out of time now.
SeVeR Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 (edited) It only works if everyone is carrying a gun. lol? How so? How is me defending myself from a mugger dependent on you owning a gun? You talked about guns being a deterrent for muggers. Bak quite rightly replied that muggers have no idea who has a gun and who doesn't. The only way they might be deterred is if most people owned a gun. So according to sever we should ban all forms of self defense because ultimately if a criminal has a gun, if you pull a weapon, of any sort, on said criminal you have a higher likely hood of being killed. You're really putting words into my mouth here. I'm saying that if a criminal with a gun decides to mug you, then what the !@#$%^&* are you going to do about it? If you go for your gun then you are dead. End of story. If someone knows or believes that you are carrying a gun, they are less apt to acost you for the simple reason that it exponentially increases THEIR risk of being killed. Again, you seem to think a criminal will know you're concealing a firearm before they attack you. You having a gun is no deterrent whatsoever. Even on a crude level, as I grew up in a really bad area, why do you think all of these "thugs" carry guns? Self-defense. If someone knows or believes that you are carrying a gun, they are less apt to acost you for the simple reason that it exponentially increases THEIR risk of being killed. So all those gang-related murders were just "picking on the unarmed" gang-members right? Gangs/thugs know the other gang is armed, yet they still shoot the crap out of eachother. Edited March 21, 2008 by SeVeR
Aileron Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 (Back to SeVeR's post a page back, my point was only to establish the proper line of thinking. JDS's argument wasn't following democratic lines.) It means they are ignoring multiple contributing factors which have a higher correlation to the outcome than the one they wish to focus on. For instance, you could have a person who abused drugs and own a gun commit suicide. Now, the data could clearly state that the suicide rate amongst drug abusers, gun or no gun, is extremely high, but we don't know that because the conclusions were only based upon one variable. The point is that there are a LOT of biased statistics on this matter, and while I do think that the NRA's stats are more accurate based on the fact that the rate that they never have to go back and issue an apology, I think it would be wise to come to this conclusion: For every statistic that the pro-gun control supporters create, there will be another statistic from anti-gun control people which says the exact opposite, and vice versa. If any conclusion is to be come to, we must all admit that the numbers can easily be manipulated and we should all give up trying to prove this issue by statistics. There are two proposed models for a solution: One is that if weapons are centralized to the government, that the average costs of obtaining a firearm offset the average profits of crime.The other is that if weapons are decentralized to the populace, it becomes extremely difficult for a criminal to gain a physical edge over the populace over the long term, thus decreasing the average profit of crime. The problems with the liberal model are as follows: 1) It is dependent upon the government to solve all crime problems. If the police fail, the criminal population can take over the entire community.2) It favors criminal organizations which can afford high capital investment, granting an edge to organized crime. The benefits to the conservative model: 1) Power is decentralized.2) There is a backup to police failure.3) Single criminals have virtually no impact on crime. Gangs are required to gain an edge. This means that the criminal goes through the difficulty of networking, though does not get the benefit of a centralized criminal organization. I guess the major difference isn't the amount of violent crime, which is dependent upon the amount of people in the populace predisposed to violence, but it does affect the type of violent crime. With centralized guns, you have a lot of small time criminals who can grab a small weapon and get a reliable advantage over those weaker than themselves. Also, you favor large organizations with both investment capital to acquire illegal weapons as well as offset the government with bribes or threats. With decentralized guns, criminals need to form a gang in order to get a reliable edge over the populace. Since gangs need loot divided amongst themselves, they need to go after high dollar targets such as banks. However, if a gang operates in any one area too long, probability catches up to them and they lose at the hands of either police of militia. Now, I haven't addressed the issue of the suicidal killer, but in my opinion that issue will not be solved by weapons, but by dealing with the societal issues that are causing these people to develop.
Bak Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 If a stranger, whom obviously has some form of malicious intent, is on my property where my fiance lives (kids too someday) you bet your !@#$%^&* I'm not going to think twice about shooting him. I vigorously object to this notion. What happened to love your neighbor as yourself or treat others as you want to be treated? I know they're not supposed to be on your land, but that in no way, ever, deserves a death sentence. gangs don't go after banks. They sell drugs and extort store owners. They offer protection to people on their turf for a fee. gangs do operate in one area for long times and the police do know about it. However, the police are unlikely to go after the leadership of gangs as it creates a power vacuum which results in more violence. I recently read "Gang Leader for a Day" where a sociologist hung out with a gang for several years to see what it was really like. It's an amazing book; I couldn't put the thing down.
ThunderJam Posted March 21, 2008 Author Report Posted March 21, 2008 you could also just fend off a mugger with pepper spray... (i know mace is illegal now)...
»Lynx Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 If a stranger, whom obviously has some form of malicious intent, is on my property where my fiance lives (kids too someday) you bet your !@#$%^&* I'm not going to think twice about shooting him. I vigorously object to this notion. What happened to love your neighbor as yourself or treat others as you want to be treated? I know they're not supposed to be on your land, but that in no way, ever, deserves a death sentence. I agree, if somebody is robbing your possessions from your house, try to get the !@#$%^&* out of your house. Insurance covers anything stolen, and if it takes over 45 minutes for the police to turn up, then the problem lies in the incompetent police force of whatever area in which you reside. As I said earlier, people steal due to deprivation, and are often stealing to try and provide for themselves. All I can say is that the safest matter is to try and avoid confrontation - and get away from any kind of hostility which may arise. From what I understand of the gun laws in America, the guns need to be stored in a locked box, and the ammunition needs to be stored in a separate locked box - which seems like a completely fruitless defence method - as anybody who is taking things from your house should definitely be able to "deal" with you before you can get to your best defence. No person has the right to end another persons life, especially for something as petty as material things which you own.
NBVegita Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Sorry I had responded to all posts but I accidently closed the tab instead of opening a new one so I'll touch on it gradually. I vigorously object to this notion. What happened to love your neighbor as yourself or treat others as you want to be treated? I know they're not supposed to be on your land, but that in no way, ever, deserves a death sentence. I sure as !@#$%^&* would bet that this man/woman in my house, stealing my things, causing duress to my family, would be the first to take a shot at me if I were in their home doing the same thing. How can you have compassion for a person who is knowingly breaking the law and who full well knows the consequences? What if this man or woman has more on their mind than just robbing you? According to your reasoning, in concern to the situation I faced as a child, you would rather have a dreg of society murder in cold blood a mother and her young children than give them the means to protect themselves? Since when is it more important for the law to protect the criminals breaking it, than allow the citizens who abide by it the opportunity to defend themselves. From what I understand of the gun laws in America, the guns need to be stored in a locked box, and the ammunition needs to be stored in a separate locked box - which seems like a completely fruitless defence method Depends on the state and the weapon. My mother has a permit to carry concealed so she is actually allowed to carry her .357 magnum unlocked (holster), loaded with the safety off, while she is walking down the middle of the street. She's had the permit since the 70's, in NY state which is one of the toughest states to get a permit to carry concealed in. Too bad the man hadn't taken one more step further into our house as a kid, my mother could have saved the other family from the fate we almost had.
Aileron Posted March 21, 2008 Report Posted March 21, 2008 Okay, how about this: You, your wife, and your teenage daughter are walking home when you are suddenly cornered by two guys armed with knives who wish to rape your wife and daughter.
Bak Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 I sure as !@#$%^&* would bet that this man/woman in my house, stealing my things, causing duress to my family, would be the first to take a shot at me if I were in their home doing the same thing.It's "treat others as you want to be treated" not "treat others as they would treat you"... big difference because with the first one you're nice to everyone, with the second one you're nice to the nice people and an !@#$%^&*hole to the !@#$%^&*holes. the original story I was responding to was that a stranger is merely on your property and you wouldn't "think twice" about shooting at him. You could make a case for defending yourself if he's in your house har!@#$%^&*ing your family with clear malintent. As for the story from when you were a kid, it's obviously much better that you are here today. However, just because guns have the power to help out in one situation doesn't mean they are an overall good thing for society. If it were the case that, in general, they caused more innocent people to die than would otherwise, certainly you would think they're worth banning? The debate is still one worth having to figure out if this is the case.
SeVeR Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 I sure as !@#$%^&* would bet that this man/woman in my house, stealing my things, causing duress to my family, would be the first to take a shot at me if I were in their home doing the same thing. So you're saying you're no better than the criminal? You'll descend to their level? How can you have compassion for a person who is knowingly breaking the law and who full well knows the consequences? What if this man or woman has more on their mind than just robbing you? You'll shoot someone on a "what if".... guilty with prompt execution before proven innocent? Wow. Okay, how about this: You, your wife, and your teenage daughter are walking home when you are suddenly cornered by two guys armed with knives who wish to rape your wife and daughter. Run, call for help, pull out your knife if you have one, ... wonder why you're in a dark corner without any witnesses at the mercy of two armed men? Seriously...
Bak Posted March 22, 2008 Report Posted March 22, 2008 what about this: you're in the middle east surrounded by 10,000 terrorists who are going to rape your daughter... legalize personal nuclear weapons!
Recommended Posts