Unarmed versus Armed Victims

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>What does drunk driving have to do with taxing a hookers fee and taxing weed?

Drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you don't run into things with your car.

Doing drugs doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you're not committing crimes to get it or supporting criminals.

Getting a hooker doesn't hurt anyone - again, provided you're not supporting a criminal enterprise by doing so.

Carrying a gun doesn't hurt anyone - as long as you are not careless with it or use it inappropriately.

Sounds like all those things should be legal (perhaps even taxed) by your reasoning.

Intoxication translates to diminished capacity, which is the chief reason why DUI doesn't fit with the others you list here, Bill.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It's time to trot out this study once again, for the new guy here. That's you:

No self protection ........................ 25% 27%
Gun ....................................... 17% 12%

Interesting. Basically what you're saying is that using a gun for self-protection versus doing nothing at all lowers a victim's chance to get hurt only by 8% during a robbery, and only by 15% during assault. This is if we use the information reported by a very biased source (a prominent pro-gun book writer), so the real difference may be even lower. But even taking it as face value, is a 8% difference really look like a significant advantage to you?

Math failure.

25 -> 17 is a 32% reduction.
27 -> 12 is a 56% reduction.

so yeah, if you take it at face value, it's a huge advantage. Even if you don't, it blows away your argument [that victims make things worse by having guns].

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What part of going to the SHOOTING range EVERY week did you not translate????

So? Some not-so-fucking and not-so-lame ass gangstas may go to shooting range too. They also might have experience shooting real people, and being criminals they strike first. That's why I asked if you have real experience outshooting gangstas in real-world situation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. dude... give it up. Your lame meter is on overload.

Ever hear the term practice makes perfect... but if you ever shot anything other than your........well you get the picture.

There is an important line to respect: The one between the US and Europe.

Amazon, as per your posts I do remember where you live. At your place, I'd do the same. Be very careful and armed as much as it needs.

Where most Europeans live, it's not that relevant. We rarely have predators, walk 99.9 % of our deepest forests without beeing killed by a cat or a bear, and walk 99,9 % of our (inner) cities w/o beeing killed.

You, Amazon, perhaps cannot imagine that. It's just like that. At least within my small country. Nearly nobody is breaking his head while walking home at 02.00am; we just had some hot and drunken carnival days here, thousands of party folks around, drinking, dancing .... going home w/o a gun. Nobody's been killed.

I own several guns, perhaps you know that. I'd never bring them along to walk in the streets while drunken carnival freaks are tumbling around me, what for??? They do not intend to kill me.

But, just to imagine THOSE drunken freaks are armed makes me shiver. They are beating each other, let them enjoy it. There will be a nice big hangover next day plus some headache plus a fresh scar. But no dead people. I know it sounds like a children's book.

That applies to most European countries.

If one day I should feel the need to practice every day (to be perfect ...) to protect my life, really, I'd look for a safer place.

We do not understand your need to be armed, you do not understand ours not to be armed. Let's remain like that.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What part of going to the SHOOTING range EVERY week did you not translate????

So? Some not-so-fucking and not-so-lame ass gangstas may go to shooting range too. They also might have experience shooting real people, and being criminals they strike first. That's why I asked if you have real experience outshooting gangstas in real-world situation.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. dude... give it up. Your lame meter is on overload.

Ever hear the term practice makes perfect... but if you ever shot anything other than your........well you get the picture.

There is an important line to respect: The one between the US and Europe.

Amazon, as per your posts I do remember where you live. At your place, I'd do the same. Be very careful and armed as much as it needs.

Where most Europeans live, it's not that relevant. We rarely have predators, walk 99.9 % of our deepest forests without beeing killed by a cat or a bear, and walk 99,9 % of our (inner) cities w/o beeing killed.

You, Amazon, perhaps cannot imagine that. It's just like that. At least within my small country. Nearly nobody is breaking his head while walking home at 02.00am; we just had some hot and drunken carnival days here, thousands of party folks around, drinking, dancing .... going home w/o a gun. Nobody's been killed.

I own several guns, perhaps you know that. I'd never bring them along to walk in the streets while drunken carnival freaks are tumbling around me, what for??? They do not intend to kill me.

But, just to imagine THOSE drunken freaks are armed makes me shiver. They are beating each other, let them enjoy it. There will be a nice big hangover next day plus some headache plus a fresh scar. But no dead people. I know it sounds like a children's book.

That applies to most European countries.

If one day I should feel the need to practice every day (to be perfect ...) to protect my life, really, I'd look for a safer place.

We do not understand your need to be armed, you do not understand ours not to be armed. Let's remain like that.

Trust me I understand that
BUT when someone comes here they have to understand OUR reality.

I just guess I value my personal safety more than others do... who WISH the problem to just go away.

OH and I do spend a certain amount of time in areas where 4 legged predators are a consideration.... where humans are still part of the food chain.
I do worry a lot less about 4 legged predators... than I do about the doped up 2 legged predators that are far more prevalent.

[fasted3 0]

Quote

They prey on those who are easy marks.... guess where that puts all of you who think your police saviors will keep you safe.

I'm not one. I've never had cops do anything good for me.
I'm sorry for those that feel so under attack that they need to carry a gun. I don't. I go where I please, and if I get in trouble, what's the worst that can happen? I think I'd rather live out the rest of my life without killing anybody; I've made it this far.
In a way I feel safer with some people walking around packing, both cops and good guys, but again the scales are pretty even for me. Good guys miss too. I thought the owner's license was a good idea, but I really don't care. It does seem pretty crazy like it is, but I don't think my idea would solve all the problems either.
One more anecdote for ya:
A guy put a gun in my face once and asked me if I had any money. I told him no, but I'd sure give him some if I did. He said ok, never mind.
No pee ran down my leg, and I didn't call the cops either.

But what do I know?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I've never had cops do anything good for me.
I'm sorry for those that feel so under attack that they need to carry a gun.

No conflict in those statements.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We rarely have predators, walk 99.9 % of our deepest forests without beeing killed by a cat or a bear,

Was this something to be proud of?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

We rarely have predators, walk 99.9 % of our deepest forests without beeing killed by a cat or a bear,

Was this something to be proud of?

No, why?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[fasted3 0]

Quote

Quote

I've never had cops do anything good for me.
I'm sorry for those that feel so under attack that they need to carry a gun.

No conflict in those statements.

Of course there is a conflict, if you are of the opinion that the only reason anyplace is safe it because of police and armed militia such as yourself. I believe that the vast majority of people are good and honest. The ones that are not do not seem to have become honest, in spite of the police state we live in now. Just as I did not deny that guns sometimes are used correctly for a good purpose, I will not deny that cops sometimes do help people. It just happens that I haven't seen it myself.

But what do I know?

[billvon 3,063]

>Some might say just the act of drunk driving is careless and inappropriate.

They might indeed! Some also might say carrying a loaded gun in public is careless and inappropriate; indeed. some here have said very similar things, and expressed a desire that such actions be outlawed.

One argument you could make is that it doesn't matter what you have in your bloodstream (or in your holster) unless you violate a law

[billvon 3,063]

>Intoxication translates to diminished capacity . . .

As we've seen here, carrying a gun can lead to poor judgment; several people have stated they would remain in a dangerous situation if they had a gun to make them feel safer. And for _some_ people that is no doubt true - just as some people cannot safely drive with a BAC of greater than .08.

However, in both cases, you could argue that that doesn't matter. Only people who break the law with their gun (or their car) should be legislated against. If you can carry a gun safely, you should not be forbidden to do so just because other people can't. If you can drive safely at a BAC of .10, you should not be forbidden to do so just because other people can't.

Or you could take a more preventative approach and set limits for both.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Intoxication translates to diminished capacity . . .

As we've seen here, carrying a gun can lead to poor judgment; several people have stated they would remain in a dangerous situation if they had a gun to make them feel safer.

Poor judgment is not the same thing as being in a state where you're incapable of making good judgment.

[billvon 3,063]

>Poor judgment is not the same thing as being in a state where you're
>incapable of making good judgment.

Agreed. And having a BAC of .10 does not prove that you are incapable of having good judgment. Some heavy drinkers function quite well at such a BAC.

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

>What does drunk driving have to do with taxing a hookers fee and taxing weed?

Drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you don't run into things with your car.

Doing drugs doesn't hurt anyone besides yourself - as long as you're not committing crimes to get it or supporting criminals.

Getting a hooker doesn't hurt anyone - again, provided you're not supporting a criminal enterprise by doing so.

Carrying a gun doesn't hurt anyone - as long as you are not careless with it or use it inappropriately.

Sounds like all those things should be legal (perhaps even taxed) by your reasoning.

That is a BIG stretch... first guns are totally different and a right.

Second, alchol is leagal and DUI is illegal so its controlled as is shooting someone when it is not defense.

I simply said that hookers and weed could be taxed and legal. Well I said drugs but I meant just weed to be honest... my bad.

Your argument is not taht logical?

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

>Intoxication translates to diminished capacity . . .

As we've seen here, carrying a gun can lead to poor judgment; several people have stated they would remain in a dangerous situation if they had a gun to make them feel safer.


Really? So does knowing martial arts then compare to driving drunk as well if it means that person is more willing to stay in a situation? I know... yes it does

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[billvon 3,063]

>Second, alchol is leagal and DUI is illegal . . .

Right. Just as guns are legal but carrying them in public (often) is illegal.

The most common argument on the gun topic involves two sides:

1) "I think guns out in the public are dangerous, and I want them restricted!" "You can't just carry them around; what if someone goes nuts and kills lots of people?"

2) "I carry a gun all the time and it's always fine." "My gun never shot anyone." "You're a gun-o-phobe who can't handle guns, so your opinion doesn't count." "I need to be able to carry a gun so I can protect myself."

I've heard a similar argument played out late at night at the DZ:

1) "You can't drive, you've had WAY too much to drink!" "You could kill someone!"

2) "I'm fine; I drive like this all the time." "I'm not going to hurt anyone." "You can't handle your liquor so you wouldn't understand." "I need to drive home; it's not safe for me to just sleep here." "I have to be at work tomorrow."

In both cases the issue is similar - is it OK to restrict someone's (non-harmful) activities just in case he might harm someone while doing them? In both cases, advocates argue vehemently that they won't hurt anyone, and other people should butt out.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Poor judgment is not the same thing as being in a state where you're
>incapable of making good judgment.

Agreed. And having a BAC of .10 does not prove that you are incapable of having good judgment. Some heavy drinkers function quite well at such a BAC.

Good is completely subjective. Diminished is a more appropriate term.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Washington, DC violent crime rate 1437.
Then, right next door you have Alexandria, VA, violent crime rate 230.
So, tell me again how the gun laws account for the violent crime, George?

See, you can only "prove" your point if you go to heavy cherry-picking.

Alexandria, VA: 140K people, 60% whites, 20% blacks.
D.C: 600K people, 35% whites, 55% blacks.

Now what about Baltimore, MD which have much closer population type and density to D.C. than Alexandria?

Quote

So, you're claiming that the gun laws in Oakland are materially different than LA or SF?

No, I'm claiming they are the same across CA, and therefore your choice of Oakland instead of LA or SF is a cherry-picking - as usual.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Currently criminals have to wonder most places if their intended victim has a gun.

Not here in CA or NYC.
Still even in NYC we have significantly less violent crime than in Houston, TX.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Perhaps you would also like non-voters to decide what additional restrictions should be placed on determining who is allowed to vote in elections.

You have been told before by a moderator to stop making things up and attribute them to others. Doing it again?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So what are YOU going to do when a group of thugs is stalking you and ready to pounce...

Probably the same as YOU will do when a next Cho aims at your back and presses on the trigger.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Math failure.

25 -> 17 is a 32% reduction.

Those 25 and 17 are not numbers, those are percentages already. You are taking percentages out of percentages, which is meaningless.

It was made clear in the post above that those were percentages, but you somehow skipped this part in your quote - thus it can be considered an intentional lie.

Welcome back.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[masterrig 1]

Quote

reply]

I live not too far from the Big Bend region and have heard many similar tales as you posted. It's getting scarey. Especially with the increased drug traffic through the area. With all this in mind, I'm glad to see the change in the laws pertaining to the carrying of firearms in the Big Bend park and other parks.
Chuck

I know of a guy who was packing with horses and mules in a National Park. He had two mules roll down a very steep hillside. Both had broken legs and internal injuries.

Guns were outlawed then in National Parks, so he had no choice but to cut there throats with a knife. He said it was awful to have two of his favorite pack animals looking back at him as they bled to death. He said after that he always carried a gun in the back country. He didn't care what the law said.

My dad said he never wanted to have to put one of his horses to death with a rock or knife. He always had an old 30/30 in his saddle boot. One time he had his camp raided by a grizzly when he was out fishing. There's plenty of uses for a gun other than shooting two legged varmits.....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps you would also like non-voters to decide what additional restrictions should be placed on determining who is allowed to vote in elections.

You have been told before by a moderator to stop making things up and attribute them to others. Doing it again?

From this, I must take it that the debate technique of using rhetorical analogies to make a point, is over your head.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Math failure.

25 -> 17 is a 32% reduction.

Those 25 and 17 are not numbers, those are percentages already. You are taking percentages out of percentages, which is meaningless.

It was made clear in the post above that those were percentages, but you somehow skipped this part in your quote - thus it can be considered an intentional lie.

Welcome back.

The lie is the ridiculous statement that you can't take percentages of percentages.

Percentages are merely rates. If you have statistically significant rates of 2% and 1%, the second rate is 50% lower. It is in actuality far more misleading to say it's a 1% difference.

By your math, there is no difference between:

10 versus 9%
or 90 versus 89%
or 2 versus 1%.

These deltas are quite distinct from each other. The middle one is essentially meaningless. The first one has a marked difference, the last one is a huge one.

Only you, the guy who claims he'll never be in danger, wouldn't consider a 32% reduction in the likelihood of injury as insufficient motivation to have a gun.