Quake3World

tnf wrote: No, I just smell someone trying to deflect a bigger issue with statistics and the problems contained therein.
Why don't you give us *your* position on this whole issue, so we can at least know exactly where you are coming from? I mean, obviously, in your opinion, the American way of doing things doesn't work.
Actually, don't even bother with that. Just let me know what the 'correct' policy on guns is. I'm being serious here...if this debate is to continue, it's only fair that you let us know this. (although its hard to call this a debate as everyone seems to be arguing about something different than I am).

so you ask for the evidence, dont like what it says then try to ignore or divert from it and back to a soft point of view, nice one

Memphis wrote:

tnf wrote: Good, so the burden is on the victim of the violent crime to justify why the acted the way they did when being attacked.

He could have a harder time doing that if not seen retreating as the victim

If retreating was an option.

Which in many cases it is. Which is why I HAVE STATED FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THIS LAW IS SPECIFIC TO SITUATIONS WHERE THE 'VICTIM' IS NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE RETREATING IS THE SAFEST OPTION. RARE CASES, BUT ONES THAT SHOULD BE PROTECTED UNDER THE LAW ANYHOW SO WHEN THEY DO ARISE THERE ISN'T SOME INNOCENT GUY WHO SHOT THE DUDE TRYING TO ATTACK HIM AND HIS WIFE GOING TO JAIL FOR IT.

Sorry for yelling, but its a point I've been reiterating again and again. There are many laws that have small stipulations that spell out one's rights in rare situations. Like this.

tnf wrote:

Geebs wrote:How 'bout some maths on the "2.1 million defensive uses of guns a year" stat?

tnf quotes rates of violent crime in the US as about 600 per 100,000 population. The US population is about 300,000,000, giving us 1.8 million violent crimes a year. This gives us about 0.3 million non-violent crimes a year in which a gun is used defensively - so presumably, guns are being used as a measured, proportionate response to littering, jaywalking, public nudity, and parking in a restricted zone by US citizens 300,000 times a year. Smell a rat?

No, I just smell someone trying to deflect a bigger issue with statistics and the problems contained therein.

The NRA's statistics are bogus. That was a 3 second demonstration.

Why don't you give us *your* position on this whole issue, so we can at least know exactly where you are coming from? I mean, obviously, in your opinion, the American way of doing things doesn't work. According to the graph that you called irrelevant (take the data for what its worth), there were more violent crimes in England (per capita) or whever it was than in the US for a period of 3 or so years. If guns are so conducive to crime across the board, why was there this disparity in the violent crime rates?

Violent crime is NOT gun crime. It includes assault and rape. Domestic assault has an extremely high incidence. In my personal experience (and according to national estimates), most victims of domestic assault and domestic rape do not press charges, and are victims of multiple crimes. The minute you have the slightest increase in reporting of domestic violent crime, you will massively skew the figures.

Actually, don't even bother with that. Just let me know what the 'correct' policy on guns is. I'm being serious here...if this debate is to continue, it's only fair that you let us know this. (although its hard to call this a debate as everyone seems to be arguing about something different than I am).

Like I said, guns are offensive weapons. Carrying a concealed weapon is a badge of insecurity rather than anything else - especially if you're so anal that you get a license to do it. My position is that they have an insignificant role in personal defense.

S@M wrote:

tnf wrote: No, I just smell someone trying to deflect a bigger issue with statistics and the problems contained therein.
Why don't you give us *your* position on this whole issue, so we can at least know exactly where you are coming from? I mean, obviously, in your opinion, the American way of doing things doesn't work.
Actually, don't even bother with that. Just let me know what the 'correct' policy on guns is. I'm being serious here...if this debate is to continue, it's only fair that you let us know this. (although its hard to call this a debate as everyone seems to be arguing about something different than I am).

so you ask for the evidence, dont like what it says then try to ignore or divert from it and back to a soft point of view, nice one

edit - nvm.

The only evidence I asked for was in response to statistics that were given...the whole time I've been trying to get this fucking discussion back onto the specific issue being discussed. But since that isn't happening, I'd like to know what the ideological stance of the person we are debating is.

Geebs wrote: Like I said, guns are offensive weapons. Carrying a concealed weapon is a badge of insecurity rather than anything else - especially if you're so anal that you get a license to do it. My position is that they have an insignificant role in personal defense.

So should they be illegal? This is what I've been trying to get at...and we could have saved pages of debate here. I've said multiple times that I don't think guns are the end-all-be-all answer to self defense. I said a lot of people that have them shouldn't...or somethign to that effect. Most people I know that carry guns do so because it makes them feel 'tough.' But all that is really irrelevant in this particular debate about this particular law, because GUNS ARE LEGAL HERE. So, that being the case, what do we think about *this* law.

You see, we aren't on completely opposite ideological platforms here. But nobody wanted to address this issue with the acceptance that guns are legal here and then go from there to discuss this law. Instead, the issue devolved into something about gun control in general...which is a perfectly valid area to debate, but beyond the scope of what I wanted to discuss in terms of this particular law.

And back to one of my old questions - does the trafficking of large amounts of marijuana ever involve guns? Do most people that smoke get their shit from small, local sources? Do drug dealers ever invovle themselves with running illegal weapons as well? Is it at all hypocritical to smoke weed and use other drugs while wagging your finger at the U.S. for its policies regarding the legal availability of guns? These aren't meant to be sarcastic at all - I am genuinely curious.

I'll look for statistics myself, but I'd like to hear the opinions of some of the people here who indulge in the marijuana.

People who try to claim marijuana doesn't involve criminals, guns, deaths, violence, broken families are definitely smoking something.
About the only thing legalizing pot might be good for is possibly eliminating or lessening some of these things.

losCHUNK wrote:you guys got age limits on guns ?

Here's a hint. In Georgia, embryos can drive but you have to be at least 3 to get married.

S@M wrote:oh Dave,
thats poor, very poor. its nothing like what your suggesting - if that makes you feel bad, go shoot someone

eh?

when you lump all people together into a category.. americans, british, welsh, muslims.. you're asking for trouble. it's a simple fact

this thread needs rep

Dave wrote:

S@M wrote:oh Dave,
thats poor, very poor. its nothing like what your suggesting - if that makes you feel bad, go shoot someone

eh?
when you lump all people together into a category.. americans, british, welsh, muslims.. you're asking for trouble. it's a simple fact

are you talking about this board or the usa? If the usa, you guys have one of the best integration systems in teh world, I read it in a Calvin Cartoon somewhere. Actually several EU cuntries are looking at teh USA and Aust to see what they can do about integration.

if by "looking at the us how to improve intergration" you mean "making bilingual traffic signs", then youre right

Geebs wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Approximately 99.9% of all defensive gun uses are not fatal shootings, however -- criminals are usually frightened off, held at bay, or non-fatally wounded. Also, many defensive firearms uses occur away from home.

These are what are known as "made-up facts"

Prove it.

Geebs wrote:How 'bout some maths on the "2.1 million defensive uses of guns a year" stat?

tnf quotes rates of violent crime in the US as about 600 per 100,000 population. The US population is about 300,000,000, giving us 1.8 million violent crimes a year. This gives us about 0.3 million non-violent crimes a year in which a gun is used defensively - so presumably, guns are being used as a measured, proportionate response to littering, jaywalking, public nudity, and parking in a restricted zone by US citizens 300,000 times a year. Smell a rat?

More baseless assumptions.

Geebs wrote:
The NRA's statistics are bogus. That was a 3 second demonstration.

You have no basis on which to make that statement. The statistics I quoted were from the NRA, based on data collected by the FBI.

Geebs wrote:

tnf wrote:NOW, ACCEPTING THAT FACT, SHOULD A PERSON CARRYING A GUN, IF THEY ARE ATTACKED, HAVE TO PROVE TO THE COURTS THAT THEY ATTEMPTED TO RETREAT FROM THEIR ATTACKER BEFORE THEY SHOT THEM?

My point is basically that a gun is an OFFensive, not DEFensive weapon. So yeah, they should prove they used all other options before opening fire.

Legally, retreat is not a synonym of "run away".

re·treat
n.

The act or process of withdrawing from a dangerous situation
- Many jurisdictions require that a person must have at least attempted a retreat, if it was possible to do so with safety, in order for a defense of self-defense to prevail. Retreat from an attack in one's own home, however, is usually not required. retreat
vb.

IF SOMEONE THREATENS ME WITH DEADLY FORCE IT DESERVES TO BE COUNTERED WITH DEADLY FORCE.
YOU BRITS SURE ARE HAPPY WITH YOUR SUBJUGATION.

If you've gotta resort to caps your case isn't looking too good kiddo

how about replacing all civilian guns with tazers as defensive weapons? theyre not lethal but they do get you out of a bind innit

Foo wrote:If you've gotta resort to caps your case isn't looking too good kiddo

Yeah, ok. Sarcastic use of inter-yelling invalidates all my previous arguments.

MKJ wrote:how about replacing all civilian guns with tazers as defensive weapons? theyre not lethal but they do get you out of a bind innit

I would love to live in a society where guns were non-existent, but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

and its that kind of mindset that is wrong with this world, sir !
shame! *rubs indexfinger*

Yeah, I'm sorry I can't make gun-wielding criminals see the light and lay down their weapons. Guess I should just run away if one of them threatens me, or happily be made a criminal myself if I put a round through his ten ring.

:icon32:

Exactly.

If someone is mugging you at gunpoint, just give him your wallet ffs. Is it worth killing someone for?