Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
I'm not a politician yet, and my training is in psychology, which does give me some insight into criminality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
I can't believe you're saying this.I wonder if someone used that argument before the war on drugs?
|
What I am saying is look at gun crime rates in D.C. before the gun ban and compare that to gun crime rates in SF right now. These rates are not the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
Call it a defensive scenereo then, not a defensive weapon.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
You should know better than to ask me that. You have no idea how offensive that request is. I'm still working ... get it?
|
I'm sorry, but I was suprised you even posted what you did. I thought, "Well, if he's willing to spill the beans...". I didn't expect a respons, of course. I'm sorry you were offended, but what did you expect? You brought up obviously ongoing investigations, not me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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).
|
Okay, so it plays NO role. I concede on this.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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?
|
It's not about police, it's about the ability to sucede, and what tools are necessary to aid in the success rate. A man with a spear is less likely to be able to break into a home (home invasions have seemed to take a center stage in this discussion, so I use that as my hypothetical scenereo) than a man with a gun. My triple pain glass windows will not stop a bullit, but they would make it much more difficult, and time consuming, to get inside without the aid of a gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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 don't have a gun, or a big dog (my dog is a beagle puppy), but I think that even my presence (a man above 6' tall with big arms and a mean look on my face) would be enought to ward off many home invaders, ESPICICALLY if they didn't have a gun. Of course, not all people are big and menacing (I suppose it's arguable whether I'm menacing or not, but anyway...), so they should take adaquate security measures. Get the security doors, get the security windows. I know that it's impossible to prevent them from coming in 100% of the time, but most would give up after a while.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
wow. this tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from. Obviously you wish to ignore everything I said.
|
You mean like mase and a taser, both of which have bene proven weapons against rape, neither of which are a gun? What about those two weapons?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
When you say 'defensive weapon'...where is the word scenereo in there? Defensive is an adjective for the gun, which is the mechanism. If you want to argue semantics, then argue them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
No, they are offensive weapons that can be used in a situation where you have to defend yourself by going on the offensive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
I think that most people should have dogs, both for their companionship, and for their loyalty when you are in danger. I am smart enought to see when one is trying to equate thing sthat, for the purpous of this argument, are not equatable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
Right and wrong are matters of p[hilosophy in this matter. I bel;ieve that they have the right to choose, and they did, legally. If you don't think they have the right to choose, that's fine, but you must admit that it was a legal vote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
Some cases shouldn't be put before a vote, of course. But many (I don't know how many, but certianally some) pro-gun people think that they should have the right to (for example
have the right to vote on whether homosexuals can get married. This is only equatable to the gun ban because they both fit neatly into "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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).
|
Like I've siad, I dohn't know if this is goig to work. If I were a betting man, I'd bet 10/1 on no. BUT that doesn't change the fact that it;'s not my decision. I live in San Jose, not San Francisco. I support their right to vote out guns, in that it is their right. The small chance that it will work isn't what makes me certian in the support, it is the fact that they voted for it. I know we live in a republic, but they still do have the right to vote on such things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
dksuddeth asked.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
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.
|
Well, I still respect you too, though you saying it's not easy to respect me makes it uneasy. Now I'm confused.