Thread: Gun Control

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Right. The guy that owned the mini-market next to my store operated on the theory that if he's aggressive towards his robbers they'll get scared and run away because they don't really want to shoot anyone.

Can you guess what he died of?

If he'd had more experience with guns, he wouldn't have died of a stroke induced by a heart attack induced by pneumonia contracted from having a bullet lodged in an inoperable position in his chest after getting shot in the face by a robber who thought the trigger on his gun had a purpose.

Gun control laws are just so effective, aren't they?

If it'll make you happier, his name was both Mohammed and Hussein.

So how do robberies of local stores go down in my little gun controlled town?

But, the shop attendant returned, armed with a mop and aided by a customer.
He struggled with the offender, removing the man's blue jumper and t-shirt in the process.
The hapless thief then fled the store, chased down by the pair who managed to grab his shoes and singlet before the thief again escaped.

Thief loses clothes as he tries to rob Brisbane shop - National - theage.com.au

Truthfully which scenario would you rather be in as the store owner - yours or mine?

See when it comes to guns I believe fervently in the great god Murphy. i.e. if there ever comes a time when I need to defend myself with a gun I will not be within 30 feet of one.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Right. The guy that owned the mini-market next to my store operated on the theory that if he's aggressive towards his robbers they'll get scared and run away because they don't really want to shoot anyone.

Can you guess what he died of?

If he'd had more experience with guns, he wouldn't have died of a stroke induced by a heart attack induced by pneumonia contracted from having a bullet lodged in an inoperable position in his chest after getting shot in the face by a robber who thought the trigger on his gun had a purpose.

Gun control laws are just so effective, aren't they?

If it'll make you happier, his name was both Mohammed and Hussein.

i'm confused. you seem to be trying to counter my point, but all you did was prove me right, which if thats what you were trying to do, then thanks for the example.

Originally Posted by nickcuse

its called common sense. if i'm poor, or have a drug addicition, stealing is the easiest way to get what i need. what does murder get me? what does assault get me? nothing except higher consequences.

if murder was so prevelant, there'd be more of them than armed robberies. but there isn't.

I just gave a reason in the post you were responding to.

Originally Posted by davisjr1990

I just gave a reason in the post you were responding to.

ok, yea, that MAY be true, but it obviously isn't MOST of the time, or like i said, there would be more murders than there are armed robberies.

theives like efficiency. its why car alarms work and home alarms work. they want the path of least resistance. murdering someone after mugging them only makes your life of crime harder, not easier.

LOL! This is really a circular argument.

The gun lobby says that you mustn't ban them coz you need a gun to defend yourself against your fellow citizens who all carry guns.

The anti-gun people say, in the event of a gun ban, your fellow citizens are unlikely to have guns so you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

Both positions are valid. It just depends upon which state of equilibrium you wish your society to employ.

The average jobbing burglar in Australia or the UK could, if he wanted to go to the trouble and expense, avail himself of a weapon from the criminal underground (assuming he has the appropriate contacts). But as he is extremely unlikely to be confronted by an armed householder (or, in the UK, by an armed policeman). He therefore sees no need for the hassle of getting a gun, and he is also aware of the magnitude of the penalty for armed robbery (a very serious crime in our society) as against simple break and enter.

So, on balance, the anti-gun stance makes more sense from the point of view of a less dangerous society. Of course the matter of interpretation of amendments to documents written for a society 230 years ago, and what rights they may or may not confer, is another question entirely.

I would not presume to tell anyone how to run their society, but in the practical sense, gun ownership appears to confer few advantages upon any society.

Originally Posted by Leo

LOL! This is really a circular argument.

The gun lobby says that you mustn't ban them coz you need a gun to defend yourself against your fellow citizens who all carry guns.

The anti-gun people say, in the event of a gun ban, your fellow citizens are unlikely to have guns so you don't need a gun to defend yourself.

Both positions are valid. It just depends upon which state of equilibrium you wish your society to employ.

The average jobbing burglar in Australia or the UK could, if he wanted to go to the trouble and expense, avail himself of a weapon from the criminal underground (assuming he has the appropriate contacts). But as he is extremely unlikely to be confronted by an armed householder (or, in the UK, by an armed policeman). He therefore sees no need for the hassle of getting a gun, and he is also aware of the magnitude of the penalty for armed robbery (a very serious crime in our society) as against simple break and enter.

So, on balance, the anti-gun stance makes more sense from the point of view of a less dangerous society. Of course the matter of interpretation of amendments to documents written for a society 230 years ago, and what rights they may or may not confer, is another question entirely.

I would not presume to tell anyone how to run their society, but in the practical sense, gun ownership appears to confer few advantages upon any society.

well i don't think a ban on guns makes any sense. i just don't agree with the pro-gun theory that having a gun WILL make you safer, and using that idea to justify people having MORE guns.

Gun control isn't really a big deal in this country because rich people like their guns, and some rich people get a lot richer selling guns...and poor people do all the tragic dying at the hands of guns. That's really the political and economic reality of this country. Nothing happens in this country without somebody making a buck. That's a fact. If Johnny and Suzy were getting gunned down in record numbers at Whitebread High School in Crackertown, USA, you can damn sure bet your ass there'd be a fucking war on guns going on right now. We saw it happen with the drugs.