Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Have you ever been to San Francisco? As someone who spends a lot of time there, I can tell you that the type of person who would run guns is a rarity. The type of person who would sell drugs, however, is everywhere.
|
You've clearly shown that you've fallen in to the trap of stereotypes. Do all gun runners wear cowboy hats out in San Fran?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
No, I expect your grandmother to get safety doors, just like I bought for my grandmother.
|
yes, and bar the windows and all that other junk. It's illogical to put the onus on the law abiding citizen to do everything in the world to deter the criminal when it's quite simple to put a sign out front that says protected by smith and wesson...and mean it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I will not support the death penalty for anyone, for any reason. I will support severe punishments, but not the deathe penalty. Stats have already shows that it's not a functional deterrant (see my lengthy post in the "why people hate texans" thread). The death penalty is state sponsored murder, and it's wrong.
|
Thats too bad you don't support it. You'd get rid of alot of gun using criminals that way. You'd stand a better chance of reducing gun violence with the death penalty heavily used than you would trying to remove guns.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
A meat cleaver is not a defensive tool, so you're just making my point. Fertilizer is not a defensive tool, so you're just making my point. A baseball bat...you get the idea.
|
You missed the point entirely. Will, not being harsh with you but you're being obtuse about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Yes, some situations are indefensible. Some situations only require a taser or mase. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
|
that some situations REQUIRE a gun because some criminals aren't scared of a knife or a ball bat.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well then let's examine that. How can we keep the guns from criminals, but keep the pro gun people happy?
|
full registration might have its uses but you could end up with a new orleans type situation. granted, its hypothetical but I would prefer to err on the side of the citizen and not the government. advocating full registration is just making things one step closer to a totalitarian nanny state. Trying to hold the manufacturer liable isn't a brilliant idea either. For one, it's just another version of trying to bankrupt them out of business to push a 'ban guns' type atmosphere. Two, You still have to put the liability on the person that used a gun in a criminal manner and going after the manufacturer does not do it. Now, you have a case against the dealer IF, and only IF, you can prove that he knowingly sold the gun to someone that wasn't licensed for it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
dksuddeth tried to make a katana equvelant to a gun, that's who.
1) It's about options. A criminal is exploring and option in being a criminal. The reason this is not an unreasonable option to them is that it's fast and it can be extremly profitable. With the aid of a gun, they see a higher success rate in thier criminal endevors. Take away that 'tool', and you'll see them get scared. As you said, other weapons don't have the same functionality or terror effect as a gun. Without it's aid, I suspect that many criminals will be less brazedn, and even some will give it up. Would you want to get in a shootout with the police if you have a knife?
|
The criminal is already NOT afraid of the police when he can break in and subdue/kill the victim without fear of being shot at.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
2)Get security doors. Get thicker glass. Get bars on your windows (EXPO and Home Depot have some really nice ones). As long as you secure all entrences of your house, you have almost nothing to fear. Without guns, you really do have nothing to fear. A criminal isn't going to take welding tools to your house, as the policve don't usually take more than 15 minutes. The average criminal is not a mastermind. With a properly defended house, home invasion will be a thing of the past.
|
I still don't understand why you make it the citizens responsibility to build a fortress to deter the criminal. You've said before that if a criminal is determined to, he'll make it happen. you say without guns that we really have nothing to fear. tell that to my wife when she's facing a man with a knife. tell your kids that they have nothing to fear when someone comes running at them with a baseball bat or an axe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well, we were talking about semantics, as the word 'defence' was applied to a gun. If it weren't for semantics, we wouldn't be able to communicate verbally at all, so please don't downplay it's importance. It is an offensive weapon.
|
The gun is an offensive weapon in the hands of a criminal. It's a defensive weapon to someone who uses it to stop a criminal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The seatbelt isn't used to hurt other peope, so the comparison is wrong.
|
You're being obtuse again. The seatbelt is a device designed to help protect you in an accident. The handgun is a device designed to help protect you against a criminal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You're not in San Francisco. If you were, then you'd be in a place where a majority of voters decided they didn't need a gun.
|
No, it would be a place where the majority said nobody needs a gun. If they felt THEY didn't need a gun, then they wouldn't have one.