|
Question for the people in the UK: | by SnArL | 2008-02-13 10:47:58 |
|
Huhwha? | by krikkert | 2008-02-13 10:54:06 |
|
How is this not relevant? | by SnArL | 2008-02-13 11:05:45 |
|
And how many of those assaults were lethal? | by krikkert | 2008-02-13 11:11:28 |
|
Meh, I could kill a deer with a sharpened stick. | by RetiQlum2 | 2008-02-13 11:17:34 |
|
The only problem I can see with that is | by Vidi | 2008-02-13 11:27:24 |
|
Maybe, maybe not | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 11:48:02 |
| I think you may be missing one important point. |
by Peace_man |
2008-02-13 12:03:10 |
Deadly force will always favour the aggressor.
Or, in other words, if a criminal intends to kill you, it doesn't matter how many guns you have. The criminal will always be able to shoot first and kill you.
Of course, if you want to depend on the incompetence of criminals for your protection, I can see why you don't mind making it easy for them to arm themselves. Personally I prefer to minimize the probability that unintended harm becomes lethal. There are too many examples of innocent bystanders getting killed when criminals battle it out with guns. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
No. Deterents are usefull. | by RetiQlum2 | 2008-02-13 12:07:04 |
|
I think I can assure you that the Cold War | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 12:37:39 |
|
Which increases the criminals | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 12:43:51 |
|
OK. So we agree that possession of a gun | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 12:55:03 |
|
No we can't, that is just silly. | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 13:01:33 |
|
Not at all. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 13:08:50 |
|
yep, run over them with a car while they're | by techi870 | 2008-02-13 13:11:20 |
|
Ok, and your point? | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 13:13:46 |
|
My point is that there is no defense against | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:34:47 |
|
In your perfect world, | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 14:55:40 |
|
You are advocating something I find distasteful. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:58:45 |
|
I am not | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 15:08:06 |
|
I hear you. I understand perfectly. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 15:18:15 |
|
I really hope you are joking. | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 15:25:59 |
|
40 cents in your pocket is enough to be killed for | by joecrouse | 2008-02-13 22:06:53 |
|
No defense? None?! | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 14:56:48 |
|
You are still alive. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 15:00:21 |
|
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 15:13:16 |
|
Wrong? Your own words make a liar out of you. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 15:21:49 |
|
You mean your words? | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 16:25:00 |
|
Nope | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 13:48:01 |
|
Am I hearing this right? | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:37:32 |
|
Don't need a good story | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 14:50:22 |
|
I could make that claim. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:56:31 |
|
I disagree, if you are aware of your surroundings | by techi870 | 2008-02-13 12:09:18 |
|
Ding! Translation: | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 12:13:42 |
|
I agree completely. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 12:31:58 |
|
I was talking about the comment about the | by techi870 | 2008-02-13 13:01:11 |
|
giving the extreme distance factor | by robertltux | 2008-02-13 14:23:38 |
|
So now the training associated with gun use | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:39:28 |
|
A large part of the training is being aware of | by techi870 | 2008-02-13 15:11:19 |
|
You are preaching to the choir. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 15:23:00 |
|
Sharks dont eat other sharks | by joecrouse | 2008-02-13 22:09:52 |
|
You are so wrong, again. | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 12:09:50 |
|
Wait. It looks like maybe you are moving the | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 12:27:00 |
|
The chance of an armed "mark" | by chanceslost | 2008-02-13 12:40:03 |
|
I'd be extremely interested in such studies. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 12:57:54 |
|
Lawyers Guns and Burglars | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 14:03:47 |
|
Interesting piece. It doesn't mention something | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 15:14:53 |
|
You forgot one other option: | by subbywan | 2008-02-13 16:17:19 |
|
What?! | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 12:40:10 |
|
Ah, so we ARE talking about violent crime? | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 12:51:03 |
|
The problem with that belief is that it is wrong. | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 12:53:55 |
|
Which belief are you addressing? | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 13:00:56 |
|
"proliferation of guns" (n/t) | by lheggland | 2008-02-13 13:02:19 |
|
You believe that a proliferation of guns | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:54:38 |
|
I believe it's irrelevant in the way you word it | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 15:03:46 |
|
I don't know who has been feeding you lies. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 15:32:15 |
|
can you back that up? | by subbywan | 2008-02-13 15:51:16 |
|
Without wishing to get involved in a holy war here | by AndyA | 2008-02-13 16:09:24 |
|
Agreed. Which is exactly why I asked for sources | by subbywan | 2008-02-13 16:11:53 |
|
Use Maryland | by joecrouse | 2008-02-13 22:17:59 |
|
Really? | by DesertRat66 | 2008-02-13 16:20:38 |
|
Allow me to 'splain | by SnArL | 2008-02-13 12:44:46 |
|
I'd be much more likely to attempt to steal | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 13:05:49 |
|
The Point | by SnArL | 2008-02-13 13:22:20 |
|
Actually, I didn't miss it. | by Peace_man | 2008-02-13 14:30:40 |
|
you side steped the question (n/t) | by joecrouse | 2008-02-13 22:19:37 |
|
Criminals by general definition and by | by joecrouse | 2008-02-13 22:04:15 |