willravel, the sad part is that many of your points have been addressed before. The fact that you don't aknowledge this just says you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what anyone says. Most of your points are made as unsubstantiated personal impressions. I think you ought to seriously consider the opinion of people who work with law enforcement, the legal system and epidemiologists ... and polititians are a poor substitute.
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.
|
I can't believe you're saying this.
I wonder if someone used that argument before the war on drugs?
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.
|
The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation. Regardless of whether you call it "defense" or "offense" is a pointless exercise in semantics. The purpose of a gun in "defense" is to stop an imminent threat ... note the operative words in that description.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The entertainment industry? I'd really like to hear about this. Please PM me with some names if you don't want to post them.
|
You should know better than to ask me that. You have no idea how offensive that request is. I'm still working ... get it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Well distance must play some role in the amount of difficulty or danger of running guns. There must be a higher risk moving weapons over a larger distance.
|
It plays essentially NO role. I drove from coast to coast 3 times in my SUV and didn't get stopped even once for a moving violation - most of the time I was over the speed limit. The last time my registration was expired (I forgot to renew it until the day I had to leave).
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?
|
Criminals don't fear police shootouts because the police are never there at the moment of a crime - (most criminals don't attempt daylight bank robberies in Hollywood). Home invaders don't confront the police - the police aren't expected to stop crime - it's not their job. Muggers don't confront the police. Carjackers don't confront the police. The police will attempt to get the criminal AFTER the crime is committed (whether that crime is rape or bludgeoning someone with a hammer in a home invasion which just happened in Plesanton) ... it's not their responsibility (or in their ability to STOP crime). Ask any cop ... the expectation people have that "cops stop crime" is unrealistic. Have you ever heard of a rape stopped by the police?
Let's take a home invader ... any one of them will be honest that they don't worry about the police ... it's not an issue for them at all (otherwise they wouldn't be doing it in the first place). I don't know of ONE single career home invader (yes I know more than one) who was ever confronted even once by a cop during a home invasion. That includes homes with alarms. THE ONLY THING HE FEARS IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE RESIDENT HAS A GUN OR A PITBULL - PERIOD.
I have both guns and a big dog - but my dog isn't with me 24/7.
Not all home invaders, carjackers, muggers, rapists etc. even use a gun. In fact, with some of crimes (e.g. rape) MOST of them don't. I'll have to look into the statistics ... but that's just my impression. If I'm wrong I'll post.
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.
|
wow. this tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from. Obviously you wish to ignore everything I said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
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.
|
Don't insult both our intelligences by saying that ... I explained the term "defensive weapon." The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation.
can a gun be used offensively?
absolutely! But the term "defensive" weapon refers to it's intended purpose by the user. If I drive a porsche I can call it a commuter vehicle because I drive it back and forth from work. It's not a euphemism. I shouldn't have to call it a "racer" because I don't race it. My guns are "defensive tools" because I choose to use them for defense - that's all.
In other words, "defensive gun" isn't used as a euphemism. A gun is not without lethal potential and can be used offensively as well. The police will apply the term "offensive weapon" to a car if it is used in a deliberate attempt to inflict harm on a helpless victim. Similarly the car can be used in "defense" if that same car were used to hit someone pounding on your windshield with a crowbar in an attempt to kill you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The seatbelt isn't used to hurt other peope, so the comparison is wrong.
|
You're smart enough to understand the analogy. The gun does not replace the necessity of basic preventative measures. Nor do preventative measures replace the function of a gun in self-defense. They're two different issues. I agree that one should secure the house in every way possible. But a defensive tool is a different measure - in fact, more useful than a gun is having a big dog. I have both because my dog isn't with me 24/7.
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.
|
does that make it right?
There is a reason why we don't live in a pure democracy - that's because pure democracies aren't ideal and only serve to oppress a minority.
Historically, in the U.S. the community consensus once supported witch trials, slavery and racial segregation. If not for the efforts of a passionate and informed minority to relentlessly inform and educate the masses these "common sense" truths would have never been challenged in a public forum of free ideas.
Most people don't own nor do they wish to own a firearm. It is understandable that they would vote to restrict every firearm in circulation - but that doesn't make it right. In this case it is a law that disproportionately affects a minority (gun owners). Yes. it also affects criminals but affects law-abiding citizens to a greater degree (that's because a ban means no la-abiding citizen, by definition, would have a gun).
why do you keep going over issues that have been addressed before unless you're more interested in winning an argument than uncovering the truth.
To quote, "He uses logic as a drunken man uses a lightpost ... for support rather than enlightenment." Don't be like that - I still respect you, willravel, but you're not making it easy.