• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Not Enough People Carrying Guns in El Paso, Sheriff Says

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
...

You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Criminals aren't tenured professors at Harvard Business School, very few people make a conscious choice to turn to a life of crime. Hollywood has led us to believe that there is this class of professional criminals out there who are intelligent and reasonable and basically criminals the same way some people are investment bankers. Sure, criminals aren't total morons...but they're not all that smart or reasonable either.

Some of them are in it for the money, and intelligent enough to switch their preferred crime in the face of an increased threat of being killed...but I suspect a lot of, if not most, violent crime does NOT happen under circumstances that encourage a criminal to make that trade-off. Crime is almost always presented as the random stranger model who's just looking for SOME way to commit crime, and he's not real particular about who or what his target is. But it seems to me that most of the violent crimes you hear about are specific crimes against specific targets. Some guy who's upset you cut him off in traffic isn't going to rob the 7-11 instead of shooting you in the head, gang bangers aren't going to burglarize empty houses if they can't shoot some guy who wandered into their neighborhood uninvited. Your argument assumes a kind of criminal that I don't think is all that common.

Personally, I think you're over complicating the argument here. I'm all for self-defense, and I think the one and only argument in favor of self-defense is that I should be able to defend myself if someone attacks me. I'm not part of some meta-solution to all crime everywhere, I'm not serving a greater purpose for society as a whole, I'm just defending myself against an attack. Presented in those terms, it's a lot more reasonable if you ask me. I'm not exactly sure why some pro-gun folks feel the need to talk like they are modern day paladins or something, I think it's enough to say I want the ability to do unto others before they do unto me.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
Dude, it's not a video game or an action movie...it's real life. You might have a little better time getting people to sympathize with your position if you didn't seem quite so cavalier about the idea of killing people. Not that I think you've really taken anyone "out of commission", no normal person who's been forced to take a life would refer to it in such an off-handed way. "A couple of bad guys" sounds like you're describing how you beat a level in a video game...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
If you were lucky, you might have lived. Unfortunately, some passerby saw you pull a gun then they blew you away before you could harm anyone. :(
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
Dude, it's not a video game or an action movie...it's real life. You might have a little better time getting people to sympathize with your position if you didn't seem quite so cavalier about the idea of killing people. Not that I think you've really taken anyone "out of commission", no normal person who's been forced to take a life would refer to it in such an off-handed way. "A couple of bad guys" sounds like you're describing how you beat a level in a video game...
Go read the "Have you ever used your carry piece" over at ar15.com. The ways people discuss the issue are varied, to say the least. I've been involved in two shootings, and numerous "draw down" situations over the past 15 years.

I think some people just place other things above pride, and justice, and freedom. Like family, life, happiness, etc. I just don't. You could put a gun to my mother's head and demand my wallet, and you wouldn't get it. I guess some of us are just wired differently. *shrug*
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
If you were lucky, you might have lived. Unfortunately, some passerby saw you pull a gun then they blew you away before you could harm anyone. :(
That's a risk you run. Off duty cops are killed all the time the same way. As long as that person felt that they were doing the right thing at that moment, I wouldn't hold it against them (assuming I lived.)
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Dude, it's not a video game or an action movie...it's real life. You might have a little better time getting people to sympathize with your position if you didn't seem quite so cavalier about the idea of killing people. Not that I think you've really taken anyone "out of commission", no normal person who's been forced to take a life would refer to it in such an off-handed way. "A couple of bad guys" sounds like you're describing how you beat a level in a video game...
Go read the "Have you ever used your carry piece" over at ar15.com. The ways people discuss the issue are varied, to say the least. I've been involved in two shootings, and numerous "draw down" situations over the past 15 years.

I think some people just place other things above pride, and justice, and freedom. Like family, life, happiness, etc. I just don't. You could put a gun to my mother's head and demand my wallet, and you wouldn't get it. I guess some of us are just wired differently. *shrug*
Ah, but that's my point...many of the comments like yours seem intentionally designed to convey that you're "wired differently". It's not so much an argument for self defense as a story about how you obviously have the qualities you'd like everyone to think you have.

And beyond presentation, the stories themselves are often highly unlikely....reading gun forums, it would seem that owning a gun somehow draws you into some sort of action movie that the rest of the population is missing out on. The frequency of violence against the average person and the frequency with which gun enthusiasts (allegedly) get involved in it is startlingly different, to say the least. 2 shootings and numerous "draw down situations" over 15 years is completely astounding unless you are in law enforcement or actively seek out dangerous situations. For perspective, most career cops never have to draw their sidearms in anger even once, and they spent their entire day actively putting themselves into harms way. Listening to gun forum posters, they must all live in Iraq or something...

I'm not calling you a liar, certainly some people are just remarkably unlucky, but the problem is that either way you're not making an argument that most people can relate to.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Dude, it's not a video game or an action movie...it's real life. You might have a little better time getting people to sympathize with your position if you didn't seem quite so cavalier about the idea of killing people. Not that I think you've really taken anyone "out of commission", no normal person who's been forced to take a life would refer to it in such an off-handed way. "A couple of bad guys" sounds like you're describing how you beat a level in a video game...
Go read the "Have you ever used your carry piece" over at ar15.com. The ways people discuss the issue are varied, to say the least. I've been involved in two shootings, and numerous "draw down" situations over the past 15 years.

I think some people just place other things above pride, and justice, and freedom. Like family, life, happiness, etc. I just don't. You could put a gun to my mother's head and demand my wallet, and you wouldn't get it. I guess some of us are just wired differently. *shrug*
Ah, but that's my point...many of the comments like yours seem intentionally designed to convey that you're "wired differently". It's not so much an argument for self defense as a story about how you obviously have the qualities you'd like everyone to think you have.

And beyond presentation, the stories themselves are often highly unlikely....reading gun forums, it would seem that owning a gun somehow draws you into some sort of action movie that the rest of the population is missing out on. The frequency of violence against the average person and the frequency with which gun enthusiasts (allegedly) get involved in it is startlingly different, to say the least. 2 shootings and numerous "draw down situations" over 15 years is completely astounding unless you are in law enforcement or actively seek out dangerous situations. For perspective, most career cops never have to draw their sidearms in anger even once, and they spent their entire day actively putting themselves into harms way. Listening to gun forum posters, they must all live in Iraq or something...

I'm not calling you a liar, certainly some people are just remarkably unlucky, but the problem is that either way you're not making an argument that most people can relate to.
Career cops now draw their guns almost daily. The world has changed a lot.

I tend to think that those that are part of the gun culture are obviously more likely to be involved in some sort of gun related incident. We also have a unity unlike many other political groups, and all find our way to the same forums. Most of the shootings you'll read about aren't action movie stuff. I know mine sure weren't. I felt kinda silly when it turned out the guy on my backporch only had a screwdriver in his pocket.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
...

I think some people just place other things above pride, and justice, and freedom. Like family, life, happiness, etc. I just don't. You could put a gun to my mother's head and demand my wallet, and you wouldn't get it. I guess some of us are just wired differently. *shrug*
The other thing I wanted to mention is that I don't find anything wrong with caring about things like pride, justice and freedom. And I think that sometimes defending those values might require a firearm. But what I don't understand is how you present those values as being inexorably linked to guns. I think that you can care about and defend those values without a weapon, and I don't think that going to the local gun shop and picking up a Smith and Wesson makes it any more likely you're going to defend freedom than you were before.

A gun is a tool, I don't understand this talisman-like significance that's attached to it. Especially because this extreme focus on guns tends to result in tunnel vision that blocks out OTHER ways that people can (and should) fight for pride, justice and freedom. There are certainly exceptions, but it feels like gun enthusiasts seem to be stricken with "all you have is a hammer" syndrome, if you can't solve the problem by shooting something, it gets ignore.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Dude, it's not a video game or an action movie...it's real life. You might have a little better time getting people to sympathize with your position if you didn't seem quite so cavalier about the idea of killing people. Not that I think you've really taken anyone "out of commission", no normal person who's been forced to take a life would refer to it in such an off-handed way. "A couple of bad guys" sounds like you're describing how you beat a level in a video game...
Go read the "Have you ever used your carry piece" over at ar15.com. The ways people discuss the issue are varied, to say the least. I've been involved in two shootings, and numerous "draw down" situations over the past 15 years.

I think some people just place other things above pride, and justice, and freedom. Like family, life, happiness, etc. I just don't. You could put a gun to my mother's head and demand my wallet, and you wouldn't get it. I guess some of us are just wired differently. *shrug*
Ah, but that's my point...many of the comments like yours seem intentionally designed to convey that you're "wired differently". It's not so much an argument for self defense as a story about how you obviously have the qualities you'd like everyone to think you have.

And beyond presentation, the stories themselves are often highly unlikely....reading gun forums, it would seem that owning a gun somehow draws you into some sort of action movie that the rest of the population is missing out on. The frequency of violence against the average person and the frequency with which gun enthusiasts (allegedly) get involved in it is startlingly different, to say the least. 2 shootings and numerous "draw down situations" over 15 years is completely astounding unless you are in law enforcement or actively seek out dangerous situations. For perspective, most career cops never have to draw their sidearms in anger even once, and they spent their entire day actively putting themselves into harms way. Listening to gun forum posters, they must all live in Iraq or something...

I'm not calling you a liar, certainly some people are just remarkably unlucky, but the problem is that either way you're not making an argument that most people can relate to.
Career cops now draw their guns almost daily. The world has changed a lot.
I don't know about that...that sounds a little unbelievable outside of bad areas of major cities. Got a source?
I tend to think that those that are part of the gun culture are obviously more likely to be involved in some sort of gun related incident. We also have a unity unlike many other political groups, and all find our way to the same forums. Most of the shootings you'll read about aren't action movie stuff. I know mine sure weren't. I felt kinda silly when it turned out the guy on my backporch only had a screwdriver in his pocket.
I know you guys have got a good sense of unity going...but I think that almost works against you. Rather than trying to broaden your message to appeal to people who DON'T go the grocery store carrying a gun, you guys seem to WANT to be viewed as anything but normal people who just happen to carry weapons.

Edit: I should amend that to say that I've found a lot of members of the gun community to be incredibly helpful and supportive to people new to guns, but there are definitely a fair number who aren't real keen on folks outside the gun community.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
I've made my view known many times on here about guns and I'll do it again. I've been a victim of a violent crime.

When I was 5 my mom was murdered, with a gun, by someone who was never caught. My mom did not own a gun and had no way of protecting herself, she was shot twice for no apparent reason. Best the detectives could ever figure is it was a gang related shooting, either for initiation or she was mistaken for someone else.

Point being, after that happened most people would think that my family would have been crazy anti-gun nuts afterwards. Quite the opposite. Every uncle, and even my grandmother got training, their CCL and a handgun. The day I turn 21 I will be starting the process for my CCL as well.

I will not be put in a place where I have no choice but to be a victim. Yes, the chances of cooperating and coming out alive may be pretty good... but apparently they weren't good enough for my mom.

Banning guns would have just taken the gun out of my mom's hand, who was a law abiding citizen and wouldn't have broken the law. The murderer would have still had his gun... because well, he has no care what the law is.
 

SilthDraeth

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2003
2,635
0
71
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
An armed society is a safe one. If I was a robber I wouldnt rob a store or a person who I suspected was armed.
If you were a Robber, you would Rob. If all are Armed, you just need to shoot first.
That's a fallacy - the equilibrium in that scenario would be mutually assured destruction (unless the clerk is the only person in the store)
No it wouldn't. The Robber would have the element of surprise. Unless, of course, everyone begins to greet Strangers always with guns drawn.
It goes like this:
Robber shoots victim
Nearby person shoots robber
-1 to the already small pool of robbers in the world
Some other robber says, "Hey did you hear what happened to Jimmy? Nuts to this, I'm gettin' a job at Wal-mart!"

There are far, far more many good people in the world than bad people. Give good people the ability to fend off bad people, and the good guys win.

But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
Cops and Soldiers don't carry large amounts of Cash. The thought Robbers will just go away is nonsense, they'll merely change how they Rob.
Well crap. We should just send them our money through paypal then, since we have no hope of stopping them. :roll:

Of course it will change the way people will rob. They won't rob people anymore, so we'll have less violent crime. Probably more property crime, but that's better than people being victimized by violence without recourse.
You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Some will die, but more Civilians will die as well.

My solution: Start with not making a bad situation worse. There are other ways to lower crime, such as Economic opportunity. Work on the Positive changes, not the Negative. More guns is part of the Negative.
What the hell is economic opportunity. You too are living in a dream world if you think giving a thief a job will make them not steal.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
An armed society is a safe one. If I was a robber I wouldnt rob a store or a person who I suspected was armed.
If you were a Robber, you would Rob. If all are Armed, you just need to shoot first.
That's a fallacy - the equilibrium in that scenario would be mutually assured destruction (unless the clerk is the only person in the store)
No it wouldn't. The Robber would have the element of surprise. Unless, of course, everyone begins to greet Strangers always with guns drawn.
It goes like this:
Robber shoots victim
Nearby person shoots robber
-1 to the already small pool of robbers in the world
Some other robber says, "Hey did you hear what happened to Jimmy? Nuts to this, I'm gettin' a job at Wal-mart!"

There are far, far more many good people in the world than bad people. Give good people the ability to fend off bad people, and the good guys win.

But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
Cops and Soldiers don't carry large amounts of Cash. The thought Robbers will just go away is nonsense, they'll merely change how they Rob.
Well crap. We should just send them our money through paypal then, since we have no hope of stopping them. :roll:

Of course it will change the way people will rob. They won't rob people anymore, so we'll have less violent crime. Probably more property crime, but that's better than people being victimized by violence without recourse.
You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Some will die, but more Civilians will die as well.

My solution: Start with not making a bad situation worse. There are other ways to lower crime, such as Economic opportunity. Work on the Positive changes, not the Negative. More guns is part of the Negative.
What the hell is economic opportunity. You too are living in a dream world if you think giving a thief a job will make them not steal.
Look at the Demographics.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
1
0
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
An armed society is a safe one. If I was a robber I wouldnt rob a store or a person who I suspected was armed.
If you were a Robber, you would Rob. If all are Armed, you just need to shoot first.
That's a fallacy - the equilibrium in that scenario would be mutually assured destruction (unless the clerk is the only person in the store)
No it wouldn't. The Robber would have the element of surprise. Unless, of course, everyone begins to greet Strangers always with guns drawn.
It goes like this:
Robber shoots victim
Nearby person shoots robber
-1 to the already small pool of robbers in the world
Some other robber says, "Hey did you hear what happened to Jimmy? Nuts to this, I'm gettin' a job at Wal-mart!"

There are far, far more many good people in the world than bad people. Give good people the ability to fend off bad people, and the good guys win.

But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
Cops and Soldiers don't carry large amounts of Cash. The thought Robbers will just go away is nonsense, they'll merely change how they Rob.
Well crap. We should just send them our money through paypal then, since we have no hope of stopping them. :roll:

Of course it will change the way people will rob. They won't rob people anymore, so we'll have less violent crime. Probably more property crime, but that's better than people being victimized by violence without recourse.
You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Some will die, but more Civilians will die as well.

My solution: Start with not making a bad situation worse. There are other ways to lower crime, such as Economic opportunity. Work on the Positive changes, not the Negative. More guns is part of the Negative.
What the hell is economic opportunity. You too are living in a dream world if you think giving a thief a job will make them not steal.
If the alternatives are stealing or $6 an hour, stealing is a lot more attractive.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
If you were lucky, you might have lived. Unfortunately, some passerby saw you pull a gun then they blew you away before you could harm anyone. :(
That's a risk you run. Off duty cops are killed all the time the same way. As long as that person felt that they were doing the right thing at that moment, I wouldn't hold it against them (assuming I lived.)
That is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk.

Leaving the hypothetical behind: In 42 years, I have never been in a situation where a Gun would have been necessary. Have you? If you have, why do you think that is? It is quite simple, the more Guns around, the more times they'll be used. If you want to live in a Society where being on your guard 24/7 is necessary, I suppose that's your choice. I'll just point out to you that other Societies have gone beyond that need or desire. It is a much preferable way to Live than the nagging Fear you choose.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
An armed society is a safe one. If I was a robber I wouldnt rob a store or a person who I suspected was armed.
If you were a Robber, you would Rob. If all are Armed, you just need to shoot first.
That's a fallacy - the equilibrium in that scenario would be mutually assured destruction (unless the clerk is the only person in the store)
No it wouldn't. The Robber would have the element of surprise. Unless, of course, everyone begins to greet Strangers always with guns drawn.
It goes like this:
Robber shoots victim
Nearby person shoots robber
-1 to the already small pool of robbers in the world
Some other robber says, "Hey did you hear what happened to Jimmy? Nuts to this, I'm gettin' a job at Wal-mart!"

There are far, far more many good people in the world than bad people. Give good people the ability to fend off bad people, and the good guys win.

But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
Cops and Soldiers don't carry large amounts of Cash. The thought Robbers will just go away is nonsense, they'll merely change how they Rob.
Well crap. We should just send them our money through paypal then, since we have no hope of stopping them. :roll:

Of course it will change the way people will rob. They won't rob people anymore, so we'll have less violent crime. Probably more property crime, but that's better than people being victimized by violence without recourse.
You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Some will die, but more Civilians will die as well.

My solution: Start with not making a bad situation worse. There are other ways to lower crime, such as Economic opportunity. Work on the Positive changes, not the Negative. More guns is part of the Negative.
What the hell is economic opportunity. You too are living in a dream world if you think giving a thief a job will make them not steal.
If the alternatives are stealing or $6 an hour, stealing is a lot more attractive.
If the alternatives are $6 or 1100 rounds per minute, I bet they choose the $6 an hour.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
If you were lucky, you might have lived. Unfortunately, some passerby saw you pull a gun then they blew you away before you could harm anyone. :(
That's a risk you run. Off duty cops are killed all the time the same way. As long as that person felt that they were doing the right thing at that moment, I wouldn't hold it against them (assuming I lived.)
That is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk.

Leaving the hypothetical behind: In 42 years, I have never been in a situation where a Gun would have been necessary. Have you? If you have, why do you think that is? It is quite simple, the more Guns around, the more times they'll be used. If you want to live in a Society where being on your guard 24/7 is necessary, I suppose that's your choice. I'll just point out to you that other Societies have gone beyond that need or desire. It is a much preferable way to Live than the nagging Fear you choose.
I don't find it unacceptable or unnecessary. I don't live in nagging fear. I go confidently down the dark alley at night, without fear. And I've some fun times (don't ask) that I might have missed out on in those dark alleys, had I been afraid to travel them.

I simply feel that it's better to have the ability to defend oneself than not. Do you disagree?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,118
3,656
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
That is exactly why guns are not the great equalizer. The element of surprise and taking a sniping shot are always going to make the victim lose, so long as the attacker doesn't royally screw it up.

The best defense is a good offense.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
My wallet is not worth my Life. If i had a gun along with everyone else, the Robber would also have a Gun. My chances of survival would be greatly enhanced if neither of us had a Gun.

Your example of Gun ownership decreasing Crime is a false comparison. If a small enclave is Armed and a nearby area is not, certainly the Robber will travel a bit further to the unarmed. Arm everyone and that choice no longer exists.

I have offered an alternative. You are just too stuck on Arming everyone to give it any thought.
I have no intention of arming everyone. There are people like you who would choose to remain unarmed, and I fully respect that choice and your right to do so. Certainly you wouldn't have a problem wearing a t-shirt with a picture of a gun crossed out on it? And having a sign outside your house that reads "This is a gun free home."

But really you said it all in your first sentence. Because my wallet is worth more to me than my life. Or, to be more accurate, I would rather die fighting than live as a victim. I will NOT be victimized. Just because you would sooner be a victim than defend yourself doesn't mean you get to make that choice for anyone else, ever.

And I think your attitude is dispicable. It's passing the buck at it's worst. It's saying, let someone else take care of it (the police.) You are eschewing your responsibility to society. That robber may go on from you to kill a little girl, or a pregnant woman. How about if he comes across someone who literally cannot afford to lose their wallet, because that wallet has the money they need to feed their kids? Well that's not your problem is it. You did all you could. Oh wait, you did nothing. You let society fall apart all around you, waiting for someone else to come along and fix it.
I lived.
I'm still alive, and I've managed to make the world a better place for it, taking a couple bad guys out of commission.

But hey, you lived. A victim.
If you were lucky, you might have lived. Unfortunately, some passerby saw you pull a gun then they blew you away before you could harm anyone. :(
That's a risk you run. Off duty cops are killed all the time the same way. As long as that person felt that they were doing the right thing at that moment, I wouldn't hold it against them (assuming I lived.)
That is an unacceptable and unnecessary risk.

Leaving the hypothetical behind: In 42 years, I have never been in a situation where a Gun would have been necessary. Have you? If you have, why do you think that is? It is quite simple, the more Guns around, the more times they'll be used. If you want to live in a Society where being on your guard 24/7 is necessary, I suppose that's your choice. I'll just point out to you that other Societies have gone beyond that need or desire. It is a much preferable way to Live than the nagging Fear you choose.
I don't find it unacceptable or unnecessary. I don't live in nagging fear. I go confidently down the dark alley at night, without fear. And I've some fun times (don't ask) that I might have missed out on in those dark alleys, had I been afraid to travel them.

I simply feel that it's better to have the ability to defend oneself than not. Do you disagree?
With a Gun, yes, I disagree.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
An armed society is a safe one. If I was a robber I wouldnt rob a store or a person who I suspected was armed.
If you were a Robber, you would Rob. If all are Armed, you just need to shoot first.
That's a fallacy - the equilibrium in that scenario would be mutually assured destruction (unless the clerk is the only person in the store)
No it wouldn't. The Robber would have the element of surprise. Unless, of course, everyone begins to greet Strangers always with guns drawn.
It goes like this:
Robber shoots victim
Nearby person shoots robber
-1 to the already small pool of robbers in the world
Some other robber says, "Hey did you hear what happened to Jimmy? Nuts to this, I'm gettin' a job at Wal-mart!"

There are far, far more many good people in the world than bad people. Give good people the ability to fend off bad people, and the good guys win.

But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
Cops and Soldiers don't carry large amounts of Cash. The thought Robbers will just go away is nonsense, they'll merely change how they Rob.
Well crap. We should just send them our money through paypal then, since we have no hope of stopping them. :roll:

Of course it will change the way people will rob. They won't rob people anymore, so we'll have less violent crime. Probably more property crime, but that's better than people being victimized by violence without recourse.
You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Some will die, but more Civilians will die as well.

My solution: Start with not making a bad situation worse. There are other ways to lower crime, such as Economic opportunity. Work on the Positive changes, not the Negative. More guns is part of the Negative.
What the hell is economic opportunity. You too are living in a dream world if you think giving a thief a job will make them not steal.
If the alternatives are stealing or $6 an hour, stealing is a lot more attractive.
If the alternatives are $6 or 1100 rounds per minute, I bet they choose the $6 an hour.
I bet they choose to shoot first.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: blackangst1
An armed society is a safe one. If I was a robber I wouldnt rob a store or a person who I suspected was armed.
If you were a Robber, you would Rob. If all are Armed, you just need to shoot first.
That's a fallacy - the equilibrium in that scenario would be mutually assured destruction (unless the clerk is the only person in the store)
No it wouldn't. The Robber would have the element of surprise. Unless, of course, everyone begins to greet Strangers always with guns drawn.
It goes like this:
Robber shoots victim
Nearby person shoots robber
-1 to the already small pool of robbers in the world
Some other robber says, "Hey did you hear what happened to Jimmy? Nuts to this, I'm gettin' a job at Wal-mart!"

There are far, far more many good people in the world than bad people. Give good people the ability to fend off bad people, and the good guys win.

But, you do have a point, when a robber knows someone is armed, they're just going to shoot first. That's why policemen are so often killed and robbed. Soldiers too. And gun shop owners.
Cops and Soldiers don't carry large amounts of Cash. The thought Robbers will just go away is nonsense, they'll merely change how they Rob.
Well crap. We should just send them our money through paypal then, since we have no hope of stopping them. :roll:

Of course it will change the way people will rob. They won't rob people anymore, so we'll have less violent crime. Probably more property crime, but that's better than people being victimized by violence without recourse.
You're living in a dream world if you think they'll just stop. They will just become more violent.
And then they'll die. As the cost of doing business rises (risk of death) people will exit the market (of robbing people) and turn towards other enterprises (likely property crime.)

What's your solution anyway? Give them what they want, no resistance at all?
Some will die, but more Civilians will die as well.

My solution: Start with not making a bad situation worse. There are other ways to lower crime, such as Economic opportunity. Work on the Positive changes, not the Negative. More guns is part of the Negative.
What the hell is economic opportunity. You too are living in a dream world if you think giving a thief a job will make them not steal.
If the alternatives are stealing or $6 an hour, stealing is a lot more attractive.
If the alternatives are $6 or 1100 rounds per minute, I bet they choose the $6 an hour.
I bet they choose to shoot first.
Can you explain why that hasn't happened in places where people carry guns? Let's look at Israel, where it's fair to assume that virtually everyone is carrying a gun. Their domestic crime rates are crazy low. You're operating on conjecture when there's real world examples to look at.

You don't want to defend yourself with a gun, but the first thing you do when you get a chance is going to be to call a guy with a gun. :confused:
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,395
3,524
126
Nebor did type:

Can you explain why that hasn't happened in places where people carry guns? Let's look at Israel, where it's fair to assume that virtually everyone is carrying a gun. Their domestic crime rates are crazy low. You're operating on conjecture when there's real world examples to look at.
Sandorski did clip
============

I'm not going to deny that my statements are not universal. Switzerland is also another exception, although I don't know if they carry much. The US is a whole other ball of wax though. Both in Israel and Switzerland Guns have a very specific purpose, that is to engage Foreign threats. The US's primary focus is on your own neighbour, your fellow Citizen. A sad fact that plays out tragically everyday.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY