| General Category > General Discussion |
| Gun control and such. |
| << < (4/23) > >> |
| TDIRunner:
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 08, 2016, 07:07:07 PM --- --- Quote from: TDIRunner on February 08, 2016, 04:20:50 PM --- --- Quote ---TDI, you're assuming I/anyone else is "afraid of guns". --- End quote --- ??? ***EDIT*** I think you just need to double check whose comments you are responding to. ;) --- End quote --- Ugh, I'm sorry. --- End quote --- No worries. ;D It was funny though, because you posted that right after my post about how I was trying to stay out of the argument. :D |
| wiggy:
--- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 08, 2016, 05:08:22 PM --- --- Quote from: wiggy on February 08, 2016, 04:08:17 PM --- --- Quote from: KalessinDB on February 07, 2016, 07:14:18 PM ---#popcorn HOW long can we go before the pro gun guy and the anti gun guy realize they're speaking completely different languages and will literally NEVER understand each other's viewpoint no matter what? I've played this game with lots of pro gun guys at work (I'm quite anto gun). We can respect each other, but we absolutely cannot understand each other. It's not worth the breath/keystrokes. --- End quote --- The thing is, I do indeed understand their viewpoint. The problem is that virtually ALL of the data regarding home defense points to "having a gun in the house is more of a liability than a security". The people who support owning handguns and the right to shoot an intruder never seem to produce any evidence to the contrary, other than the anecdotal "if the owner had a gun..." type of thing. Speculation doesn't prove anything. Also denouncing the empirical data, such as "so and so also said blah blah blah, which totally discredits his/her research/data". TDI, you're assuming I/anyone else is "afraid of guns". I never said I was afraid, I only pointed to data that supports my assertion that owning a gun is more of a liability than a security measure. The data shows that having a gun in the house is more times than not, a liability, trained or not. This is what I was talking about above. Where's the data that shows "trained" gun owners are safer at home with their guns? That's an assumption, and a rather large one at that. Not sure how the mindset is relevant? You obviously don't agree with it, but it does nothing to disprove actual data. of course someone who is against the current gun laws is going to have a mindset that is people shouldn't own hand guns or assault rifles or sub machine guns and so on. The fact that he has expressed his opinion doesn't invalidate the data. I don't have any problems with people feeling that they need some sort of firearm to feel secure. I'm just looking at data and, regardless of how any of us feel, it speaks truth. If someone wants to point to research which says firearms in homes have proven to protect the people who live there, then I'll read it. I'm just not seeing it, and it's tiresome hearing the same emotional defenses and anecdotal evidence from gun owners. I could supply a glut of personal, anecdotal evidence showing that gun ownership is not necessarily a good idea for the average citizen, but I won't, because it's not all that relevant in the grand scheme of things. More of my friends are gun owners than aren't, as an FYI. Just because I have a different opinion, doesn't mean I write someone off. So don't think that I'm going to dislike or yeah talk you for having a different opinion in this matter. Ask Palmer, we get along just fine :) --- End quote --- I'm sorry if I was a bit brash in my response earlier; it's a subject that's important to me because it enables me to defend my family. I think you meant to respond to me and might have been confused on who posted what. I made the comment earlier about people's irrational fear of guns. As for the data, it's hard to take it seriously with a statement like, "If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide." This is like saying that stepping outside increases your odds of skin cancer or people who drive are more likely to in accidents, but there's a KEY difference. I have more control over an accident with a firearm than I do with the previous two examples. It is physically impossible for my firearm to go off unless the trigger is pulled. Biased statistics are meaningless in the face of this one FACT. I am in control of the ultimate safety and it's the one between my ears. I, and only I, decide when it's used because it CANNOT fire unless I use it, and I know how to use it. I don't need to list examples of firearms saving lives because there are too many. It's a tool just like a car and used properly it can take you out of a bad situation unharmed. PS. I don't harbor any resentment or begrudge someone if they disagree. I was kind of rude earlier and apologize. I'm ok with discussion. --- End quote --- My mistake about the misquote. This forum sometimes throws me off, when I'm scrolling down to reference previous posts :/ Here's the thing, and this is an argument I see from gun owners EVERY time this debate comes up, cars aren't weapons, and neither is the sun. Comparing stepping outdoors and driving a car to gun ownership doesn't make sense. The outdoors wasn't created by man, and neither was the sun. Cars weren't created as weapons. Guns were. That's the only reason that handguns exist. They're not for hunting. They weren't invented for sport. They were invented in order to facilitate the murder if another human being. That's all. Again, dismissing the data just because you don't like the guy who presented it is simply denial. The data wasn't collected by himself. He just presents it. The same would apply if data showed that keeping a gun in your house was an effective security measure. The article would be written by someone who is very pro-gun. Point is, the data is out there to be found with and without any brash opinions attached, and there's a LOT of it. Calling the statistics biased is, well, biased, as opposed to taking a subjective look through the material. I can totally understand the feeling of control that exists, but once again, the data speaks to the contrary. Not saying that YOU are not a capable marksman, but rather that it's been shown to not be a good means by which to protect yourself in general. |
| palmer6strings:
The only thing I'm gonna say is. If someone wants to kill/hurt/intimidate/whatever... they are going to do it with anything they can get their hands on. If not a pistol, maybe a shotgun or rifle. If not those, a knife. If not that, then something else. I will also state, that someone that is actually going to buy the gun, have it registered under their name, pays to be certified CCW isn't the ones you have to worry about. Why would they spend that much money to just commit a crime? Here is the deal. A criminal is what he/she is... a CRIMINAL... they wont pay for any of that shit. Also, if the Government happens to finally take the guns away from civilians, a criminal will still be able to get their hands on firearms. A criminal wont care because they are planning on breaking the law anyway. Last but not least, the Government wants us all to be sheep. They want us to follow them, no questions asked. They already think they own everything we have. If they happen to take our firearms away, they WILL turn into a tyrannical force that we a nation wont be able to anything about. Just my $0.02. |
| FritzWhite:
--- Quote from: wiggy on February 08, 2016, 07:28:20 PM --- --- Quote from: FritzWhite on February 08, 2016, 05:08:22 PM --- --- Quote from: wiggy on February 08, 2016, 04:08:17 PM --- --- Quote from: KalessinDB on February 07, 2016, 07:14:18 PM ---#popcorn HOW long can we go before the pro gun guy and the anti gun guy realize they're speaking completely different languages and will literally NEVER understand each other's viewpoint no matter what? I've played this game with lots of pro gun guys at work (I'm quite anto gun). We can respect each other, but we absolutely cannot understand each other. It's not worth the breath/keystrokes. --- End quote --- The thing is, I do indeed understand their viewpoint. The problem is that virtually ALL of the data regarding home defense points to "having a gun in the house is more of a liability than a security". The people who support owning handguns and the right to shoot an intruder never seem to produce any evidence to the contrary, other than the anecdotal "if the owner had a gun..." type of thing. Speculation doesn't prove anything. Also denouncing the empirical data, such as "so and so also said blah blah blah, which totally discredits his/her research/data". TDI, you're assuming I/anyone else is "afraid of guns". I never said I was afraid, I only pointed to data that supports my assertion that owning a gun is more of a liability than a security measure. The data shows that having a gun in the house is more times than not, a liability, trained or not. This is what I was talking about above. Where's the data that shows "trained" gun owners are safer at home with their guns? That's an assumption, and a rather large one at that. Not sure how the mindset is relevant? You obviously don't agree with it, but it does nothing to disprove actual data. of course someone who is against the current gun laws is going to have a mindset that is people shouldn't own hand guns or assault rifles or sub machine guns and so on. The fact that he has expressed his opinion doesn't invalidate the data. I don't have any problems with people feeling that they need some sort of firearm to feel secure. I'm just looking at data and, regardless of how any of us feel, it speaks truth. If someone wants to point to research which says firearms in homes have proven to protect the people who live there, then I'll read it. I'm just not seeing it, and it's tiresome hearing the same emotional defenses and anecdotal evidence from gun owners. I could supply a glut of personal, anecdotal evidence showing that gun ownership is not necessarily a good idea for the average citizen, but I won't, because it's not all that relevant in the grand scheme of things. More of my friends are gun owners than aren't, as an FYI. Just because I have a different opinion, doesn't mean I write someone off. So don't think that I'm going to dislike or yeah talk you for having a different opinion in this matter. Ask Palmer, we get along just fine :) --- End quote --- I'm sorry if I was a bit brash in my response earlier; it's a subject that's important to me because it enables me to defend my family. I think you meant to respond to me and might have been confused on who posted what. I made the comment earlier about people's irrational fear of guns. As for the data, it's hard to take it seriously with a statement like, "If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide." This is like saying that stepping outside increases your odds of skin cancer or people who drive are more likely to in accidents, but there's a KEY difference. I have more control over an accident with a firearm than I do with the previous two examples. It is physically impossible for my firearm to go off unless the trigger is pulled. Biased statistics are meaningless in the face of this one FACT. I am in control of the ultimate safety and it's the one between my ears. I, and only I, decide when it's used because it CANNOT fire unless I use it, and I know how to use it. I don't need to list examples of firearms saving lives because there are too many. It's a tool just like a car and used properly it can take you out of a bad situation unharmed. PS. I don't harbor any resentment or begrudge someone if they disagree. I was kind of rude earlier and apologize. I'm ok with discussion. --- End quote --- My mistake about the misquote. This forum sometimes throws me off, when I'm scrolling down to reference previous posts :/ Here's the thing, and this is an argument I see from gun owners EVERY time this debate comes up, cars aren't weapons, and neither is the sun. Comparing stepping outdoors and driving a car to gun ownership doesn't make sense. The outdoors wasn't created by man, and neither was the sun. Cars weren't created as weapons. Guns were. That's the only reason that handguns exist. They're not for hunting. They weren't invented for sport. They were invented in order to facilitate the murder if another human being. That's all. Again, dismissing the data just because you don't like the guy who presented it is simply denial. The data wasn't collected by himself. He just presents it. The same would apply if data showed that keeping a gun in your house was an effective security measure. The article would be written by someone who is very pro-gun. Point is, the data is out there to be found with and without any brash opinions attached, and there's a LOT of it. Calling the statistics biased is, well, biased, as opposed to taking a subjective look through the material. I can totally understand the feeling of control that exists, but once again, the data speaks to the contrary. Not saying that YOU are not a capable marksman, but rather that it's been shown to not be a good means by which to protect yourself in general. --- End quote --- The comparison of guns to the sun or vehicles is rooted in context, that being whether it's valid to suggest a ban on something because it's dangerous. That was one of your chief arguments against guns, right? What does something being man made or it being intended to be used as a weapon have to do with whether or not it should be banned? Are you also against archery, fencing swords, and martial arts? As for handguns and sport, well, there is a sport for them. Also, a handgun can serve as a good back up weapon if you're hunting and come across a larger predator. I don't dislike your guy from the article; I'm indifferent. I quoted him to give an example of how skewed his logic is. I'm 100% OK with being judged by someone like that. He can shake his head at violence and go on about how it's wrong and honestly, I hate seeing innocent people hurt too. I don't want to hurt anyone, BUT if a threat exists you can bet your ass my family and I won't be victims. I will give you credit because your heart's in the right place. You don't want the violence and on that, we can both agree. Unfortunately, the world we live in is not all peaches and cream and reality can be brutal. I exercise my right to prepare. You made an interesting comment at the end that I'm going to call you out on, that being that a gun is not a good means to defend yourself. How can you call for a ban on the grounds that they're dangerous yet claim that they're not "good" for self defense? If someone intends to hurt me, my firearm will stop them EVERY SINGLE TIME. That's about as much as anyone can ask for of a self defense tool. I could dump an enormous, never ending pile of examples of guns saving lives on the table here but I'm not going to. You don't need statistical data to show that a properly handled quality firearm works every single time. |
| RealPlumpBox:
GUYS!!!!! I AM SORRY!!!! I mentioned I have multiple guns and whatnot but man lets get back on topic. I respect anit gun people |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |