General Category > General Discussion
Gun control and such.
wiggy:
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 17, 2016, 02:59:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness.
--- End quote ---
I'm all for civil discourse, but you're only going to hurt your argument if you try to make this up as you go. I already mentioned an 11 year old was stabbed to death next door me by a man claiming to hear voices. I can share a LOT more actual situations where deadly force was necessary, but I don't need to. Common sense dictates that worst case scenarios, however seemingly unlikely, can and DO happen everyday.
I'll share a situation anyways where deadly force would have been justifiable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
--- End quote ---
Yes, bad things happen.
Doesn't mean gun ownership would help. That's called speculation. I could what-if all day long, but it does nothing to prove a point. Nothing.
Personal opinion regarding when it is and isn't appropriate to use deadly force is of no value.
I'm making up reports/data/studies/etc as I go? I'm sort of confused. I haven't seen a single piece of data that supports the ownership of handguns, just personal opinions and speculation.
It's the same old, same old. Data is presented which shows handgun ownership is NOT beneficial, and anyone who disagrees tries to poke holes in the data/logic, without providing any evidence to the contrary.
Let's see some facts.
--- Quote from: sheep2001 on February 17, 2016, 03:28:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness. You are the reason that hand guns should not ever be owned by civilians. Thank god you're across a giant pond.
Also, it's beyond ignorant and presumptuous to assume that, because hand guns are legal here, EVERYONE here is ok with it. Does everyone in the UK like Earl Grey tea and Fish & Chips?
Wake up.
--- End quote ---
Crossed the line with the fish and chips. You can keep the earl grey, but I'll take the fish and chips every day of the week. Lol. We ALL love the f&c. And if you'd only give it a chance (along with real bacon) you'd love it too. ;D
--- End quote ---
Come on, you know what I meant :)
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 18, 2016, 11:20:43 AM ---
--- Quote from: Megatron on February 18, 2016, 10:01:32 AM ---I think you have selective memory...but just in case, here is a link to the previous discussion...
http://www.thecoverproject.net/forums/index.php?topic=18235.msg163930#msg163930
We were arguing our opinions, you made your points, and I made mine. (Thanks for the memories, BTW. I had fun scrolling through a bunch of old posts-no sarcasm implied). This topic, you stated the cartels would be an issue, when there is zero evidence to back that up. Period. You can harp on me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.
--- End quote ---
If they're already freely smuggling across the border, then how is this NOT an issue in the event of a ban, partial or total? This seems like an obvious problem. I'm not sure I understand your argument.
--- End quote ---
As has already been stated, civilians aren't protecting the general populous from the cartel.
i can't be the only one here you sees no "obvious problem" whatsoever.
FritzWhite:
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 22, 2016, 08:58:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 17, 2016, 02:59:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness.
--- End quote ---
I'm all for civil discourse, but you're only going to hurt your argument if you try to make this up as you go. I already mentioned an 11 year old was stabbed to death next door me by a man claiming to hear voices. I can share a LOT more actual situations where deadly force was necessary, but I don't need to. Common sense dictates that worst case scenarios, however seemingly unlikely, can and DO happen everyday.
I'll share a situation anyways where deadly force would have been justifiable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
--- End quote ---
Yes, bad things happen.
Doesn't mean gun ownership would help. That's called speculation. I could what-if all day long, but it does nothing to prove a point. Nothing.
Personal opinion regarding when it is and isn't appropriate to use deadly force is of no value.
I'm making up reports/data/studies/etc as I go? I'm sort of confused. I haven't seen a single piece of data that supports the ownership of handguns, just personal opinions and speculation.
It's the same old, same old. Data is presented which shows handgun ownership is NOT beneficial, and anyone who disagrees tries to poke holes in the data/logic, without providing any evidence to the contrary.
Let's see some facts.
--- Quote from: sheep2001 on February 17, 2016, 03:28:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness. You are the reason that hand guns should not ever be owned by civilians. Thank god you're across a giant pond.
Also, it's beyond ignorant and presumptuous to assume that, because hand guns are legal here, EVERYONE here is ok with it. Does everyone in the UK like Earl Grey tea and Fish & Chips?
Wake up.
--- End quote ---
Crossed the line with the fish and chips. You can keep the earl grey, but I'll take the fish and chips every day of the week. Lol. We ALL love the f&c. And if you'd only give it a chance (along with real bacon) you'd love it too. ;D
--- End quote ---
Come on, you know what I meant :)
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 18, 2016, 11:20:43 AM ---
--- Quote from: Megatron on February 18, 2016, 10:01:32 AM ---I think you have selective memory...but just in case, here is a link to the previous discussion...
http://www.thecoverproject.net/forums/index.php?topic=18235.msg163930#msg163930
We were arguing our opinions, you made your points, and I made mine. (Thanks for the memories, BTW. I had fun scrolling through a bunch of old posts-no sarcasm implied). This topic, you stated the cartels would be an issue, when there is zero evidence to back that up. Period. You can harp on me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.
--- End quote ---
If they're already freely smuggling across the border, then how is this NOT an issue in the event of a ban, partial or total? This seems like an obvious problem. I'm not sure I understand your argument.
--- End quote ---
As has already been stated, civilians aren't protecting the general populous from the cartel.
i can't be the only one here you sees no "obvious problem" whatsoever.
--- End quote ---
Police and military carry firearms. Is this based on speculation or their personal opinions? Absolutely it is. EVERYTHING is based on speculation. Before I sit down in my chair, I speculate that it will support my weight without breaking. This is speculation backed by common sense. If guns are dangerous to me in the hands of my enemy, they will also be dangerous to my enemy in my hands. You can't argue that guns are too deadly and easy to use but also maintain that they don't have any merit for self defense.
I was never talking about armed citizens fighting the cartel or defending anyone from them. What I was talking about was the fact that you can't completely eliminate guns in the US in the event of a ban because of the cartel's ability to smuggle across our border.
sheep2001:
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 22, 2016, 08:58:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: sheep2001 on February 17, 2016, 03:28:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness. You are the reason that hand guns should not ever be owned by civilians. Thank god you're across a giant pond.
Also, it's beyond ignorant and presumptuous to assume that, because hand guns are legal here, EVERYONE here is ok with it. Does everyone in the UK like Earl Grey tea and Fish & Chips?
Wake up.
--- End quote ---
Crossed the line with the fish and chips. You can keep the earl grey, but I'll take the fish and chips every day of the week. Lol. We ALL love the f&c. And if you'd only give it a chance (along with real bacon) you'd love it too. ;D
--- End quote ---
Come on, you know what I meant :)
--- End quote ---
I know. I was kidding. But we do all love it. Be very suspicious of a Brit who doesn't. In fact I'm going out to have it on Saturday - it's a special evening that happens once every couple of months. Proper English fish and chips, served in a little restaurant in southern France. Can't wait! 🤗
wiggy:
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 23, 2016, 02:29:50 AM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 22, 2016, 08:58:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 17, 2016, 02:59:28 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness.
--- End quote ---
I'm all for civil discourse, but you're only going to hurt your argument if you try to make this up as you go. I already mentioned an 11 year old was stabbed to death next door me by a man claiming to hear voices. I can share a LOT more actual situations where deadly force was necessary, but I don't need to. Common sense dictates that worst case scenarios, however seemingly unlikely, can and DO happen everyday.
I'll share a situation anyways where deadly force would have been justifiable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
--- End quote ---
Yes, bad things happen.
Doesn't mean gun ownership would help. That's called speculation. I could what-if all day long, but it does nothing to prove a point. Nothing.
Personal opinion regarding when it is and isn't appropriate to use deadly force is of no value.
I'm making up reports/data/studies/etc as I go? I'm sort of confused. I haven't seen a single piece of data that supports the ownership of handguns, just personal opinions and speculation.
It's the same old, same old. Data is presented which shows handgun ownership is NOT beneficial, and anyone who disagrees tries to poke holes in the data/logic, without providing any evidence to the contrary.
Let's see some facts.
--- Quote from: sheep2001 on February 17, 2016, 03:28:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 17, 2016, 02:44:00 PM ---If someone breaks into your house, it's to steal whatever you have sitting about, not to kill you. To murder someone in response to such a thing is a sign of mental illness. You are the reason that hand guns should not ever be owned by civilians. Thank god you're across a giant pond.
Also, it's beyond ignorant and presumptuous to assume that, because hand guns are legal here, EVERYONE here is ok with it. Does everyone in the UK like Earl Grey tea and Fish & Chips?
Wake up.
--- End quote ---
Crossed the line with the fish and chips. You can keep the earl grey, but I'll take the fish and chips every day of the week. Lol. We ALL love the f&c. And if you'd only give it a chance (along with real bacon) you'd love it too. ;D
--- End quote ---
Come on, you know what I meant :)
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 18, 2016, 11:20:43 AM ---
--- Quote from: Megatron on February 18, 2016, 10:01:32 AM ---I think you have selective memory...but just in case, here is a link to the previous discussion...
http://www.thecoverproject.net/forums/index.php?topic=18235.msg163930#msg163930
We were arguing our opinions, you made your points, and I made mine. (Thanks for the memories, BTW. I had fun scrolling through a bunch of old posts-no sarcasm implied). This topic, you stated the cartels would be an issue, when there is zero evidence to back that up. Period. You can harp on me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong.
--- End quote ---
If they're already freely smuggling across the border, then how is this NOT an issue in the event of a ban, partial or total? This seems like an obvious problem. I'm not sure I understand your argument.
--- End quote ---
As has already been stated, civilians aren't protecting the general populous from the cartel.
i can't be the only one here you sees no "obvious problem" whatsoever.
--- End quote ---
Police and military carry firearms. Is this based on speculation or their personal opinions? Absolutely it is. EVERYTHING is based on speculation. Before I sit down in my chair, I speculate that it will support my weight without breaking. This is speculation backed by common sense. If guns are dangerous to me in the hands of my enemy, they will also be dangerous to my enemy in my hands. You can't argue that guns are too deadly and easy to use but also maintain that they don't have any merit for self defense.
I was never talking about armed citizens fighting the cartel or defending anyone from them. What I was talking about was the fact that you can't completely eliminate guns in the US in the event of a ban because of the cartel's ability to smuggle across our border.
--- End quote ---
You're sidestepping (or possibly missing) the point.
Statistics say that handgun ownership is a liability. this is not an opinion, it is not speculation, it is not biased. It just is.
the cartel bringing illega firearms into the country has nothing to do with gun safety. Nothing.
FritzWhite:
I agree that this stuff about cartels is not really relevant. I feel like we dragged this old argument out already and buried it but I have no problem with reviewing facts. Everything in life is a liability and they are all comparable. People that use swimming pools have a higher risk of drowning. People that drive are more likely to be in a car accident. These are incontrovertible statistics and it's totally ridiculous to say that any of them should be banned as a result.