Guns or not Guns

[dazzerfong]

i actually saw on Discovery once, thay many robbers who carry guns into homes dont even have loaded guns, just the gun itself

 

And you're willing to bet your life on statistics? OK, your decision. And yes, I share your opinion for your first statement.

[marharth]

... unlike you I am aware that guns are used for destruction and death.

Unlike me?

You say foolish things about people as if you knew them.

I can count among my teachers and those whom I hold as mentors members of the special forces, in varying degrees, from the United States, England, and Russia.

I teach military martial arts for a living.

Unlike me, huh?

Personal experience that can not be backed up is not a valid method of argument. That is great that you teach stuff, but that really isn't a argument. You said multiple things that made me think you don't take guns very seriously. You do not "play" with guns, and I am sure someone that professionally teaches these kinds of things would know that.

 

The fact of the matter is that you do not need to have a gun if you do not need to defend against a gun. The self defense argument is seriously flawed due to that. Criminals might get guns somehow anyways, but not all criminals. Some will, but the man who kills someone out of rage or the kid who accidentally pulls a trigger will no longer be in the equation.

 

One of the big issues with society and this gun control thing is people assume that every single person convicted is a evil person. Sometimes crime happens that was not planned that would have not happened if the person did not have a gun. Sometimes there are deadly accidents. Sometimes someone feels like they need to steal to feed their family. Once people get the idea out of their head that every single criminal is a bad person, maybe this discussion could go a lot better. Guns end up causing deadly mistakes. A gun wielding store owner ends up risking his life and becoming a threat. The robber might end up making a deadly mistake.

[Syco21]

He's right about most criminals being unwilling to face down an armed citizen. I've personally seen it a couple times, many others have reported the same and when questions, criminals have stated as much.

[hoofhearted4]

i actually saw on Discovery once, thay many robbers who carry guns into homes dont even have loaded guns, just the gun itself

 

And you're willing to bet your life on statistics? OK, your decision. And yes, I share your opinion for your first statement.

 

didnt say id bet my life on anything. it wasnt a statistic, it was a former criminal saying it. he coulda been saying that outta his ass just like anyone, but being a former criminal, id bet theres truth to what he says, in that, im sure a lot of criminals use a gun to be suggestive even without ammo, kind of like keeping your hands in your pockets, suggesting you have a gun.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Personal experience that can not be backed up is not a valid method of argument. That is great that you teach stuff, but that really isn't a argument. You said multiple things that made me think you don't take guns very seriously. You do not "play" with guns, and I am sure someone that professionally teaches these kinds of things would know that.

 

The fact of the matter is that you do not need to have a gun if you do not need to defend against a gun. The self defense argument is seriously flawed due to that. Criminals might get guns somehow anyways, but not all criminals. Some will, but the man who kills someone out of rage or the kid who accidentally pulls a trigger will no longer be in the equation.

 

One of the big issues with society and this gun control thing is people assume that every single person convicted is a evil person. Sometimes crime happens that was not planned that would have not happened if the person did not have a gun. Sometimes there are deadly accidents. Sometimes someone feels like they need to steal to feed their family. Once people get the idea out of their head that every single criminal is a bad person, maybe this discussion could go a lot better. Guns end up causing deadly mistakes. A gun wielding store owner ends up risking his life and becoming a threat. The robber might end up making a deadly mistake.

Yeah, some of us know how you like to doubt other people's life experiences as valid. That's why some people are forced to stop talking to you, for a time, at least. It would actually be very easy for a person or maybe two here to put together who I am in real life, but I'd rather keep myself anon so I'm glad they don't. If you were wiser, you'd be able to better tell the BS'ers.

Since I am a professional, however, I feel urged to correct you in thinking, quite falsely, that a gun is only useful and/or necessary against another person armed with a gun. Let's give you an obvious example/worst case scenario. What would you do, then, against four or five convinced and armed assailants? Armed, let's say, with knives, axes, baseball bats, and such? I am trained for that kind of situation, but the average person hardly is, so you see, the self-defense argument is not flawed. Your understanding of it is. A trained person doesn't even need to shoot a gun to use it in a situation: that's an option that hardly if ever enters into the minds of most people. Yet having it counts, on all levels of an encounter-physical, psychological, etc-even when you don't pull the trigger.

Guns don't end up doing anything, marharth. They are inanimate objects and yet you seem to find it difficult to talk about them as if they were not. People end up making mistakes, like you said, but that's it. The gun doesn't ever end up doing anything on its own. Even for it to have a psychological effect it must be used. You say some funny things at times. Such as that I "hate" certain ideas, et al. You must be polishing that crystal ball a lot, but I can't see that it's giving you the right answers about me.

 

[dazzerfong]

@ WizardOfAtlantis:

 

He has a point: unlike a court, where you could produce qualifications via legal documents, we don't do that on the internet. For all we know, I could claim to be a former SAS operative with all the knowledge I recycled from Call of Duty. Personal experience here has next to no value, nor do personal anecdotes. I'm not saying you're a liar, but the general consensus is, false until proven otherwise.

[Aurielius]

@ WizardOfAtlantis:

 

He has a point: unlike a court, where you could produce qualifications via legal documents, we don't do that on the internet. For all we know, I could claim to be a former SAS operative with all the knowledge I recycled from Call of Duty. Personal experience here has next to no value, nor do personal anecdotes. I'm not saying you're a liar, but the general consensus is, false until proven otherwise.

Your are rather prone to dismissing peoples qualifications, Wizard has no need to embellish and I for one believe in his veracity. Personal anecdotes are perfectly valid when presented as such, so you speak only for yourself. Last you are implying falsehood while trying to side step ownership, this ruse is paper thin and insulting to read.

[marharth]

Personal experience that can not be backed up is not a valid method of argument. That is great that you teach stuff, but that really isn't a argument. You said multiple things that made me think you don't take guns very seriously. You do not "play" with guns, and I am sure someone that professionally teaches these kinds of things would know that.

 

The fact of the matter is that you do not need to have a gun if you do not need to defend against a gun. The self defense argument is seriously flawed due to that. Criminals might get guns somehow anyways, but not all criminals. Some will, but the man who kills someone out of rage or the kid who accidentally pulls a trigger will no longer be in the equation.

 

One of the big issues with society and this gun control thing is people assume that every single person convicted is a evil person. Sometimes crime happens that was not planned that would have not happened if the person did not have a gun. Sometimes there are deadly accidents. Sometimes someone feels like they need to steal to feed their family. Once people get the idea out of their head that every single criminal is a bad person, maybe this discussion could go a lot better. Guns end up causing deadly mistakes. A gun wielding store owner ends up risking his life and becoming a threat. The robber might end up making a deadly mistake.

Yeah, some of us know how you like to doubt other people's life experiences as valid. That's why some people are forced to stop talking to you, for a time, at least. It would actually be very easy for a person or maybe two here to put together who I am in real life, but I'd rather keep myself anon so I'm glad they don't. If you were wiser, you'd be able to better tell the BS'ers.

Since I am a professional, however, I feel urged to correct you in thinking, quite falsely, that a gun is only useful and/or necessary against another person armed with a gun. Let's give you an obvious example/worst case scenario. What would you do, then, against four or five convinced and armed assailants? Armed, let's say, with knives, axes, baseball bats, and such? I am trained for that kind of situation, but the average person hardly is, so you see, the self-defense argument is not flawed. Your understanding of it is. A trained person doesn't even need to shoot a gun to use it in a situation: that's an option that hardly if ever enters into the minds of most people. Yet having it counts, on all levels of an encounter-physical, psychological, etc-even when you don't pull the trigger.

Guns don't end up doing anything, marharth. They are inanimate objects and yet you seem to find it difficult to talk about them as if they were not. People end up making mistakes, like you said, but that's it. The gun doesn't ever end up doing anything on its own. Even for it to have a psychological effect it must be used. You say some funny things at times. Such as that I "hate" certain ideas, et al. You must be polishing that crystal ball a lot, but I can't see that it's giving you the right answers about me.

It doesn't matter if I doubt them or not. It is simply not valid as evidence in a debate. You are seriously suggesting that it would be perfectly okay for me to say "Yes, guns should be illegal. I know this because I am a general!" or "I know guns should be legal because I was previously in the military."

 

I don't see why I even need to explain this. Seriously people? You can't understand that anyone anywhere can say anything they want to help their argument without facts, statistics, or logic? Unless you can make a argument based on your experience, your experience is void.

 

Also I find it rather unfortunate that some people wish to ignore me because they can't deal with a counter argument and prefer insults. That is not my problem, but I am not sure why these people are on a debate forum if they can't stand different views and different methods of argument.

 

If you are being attacked by multiple people someone not trained with a firearm won't be able to fend them all off. Not to mention you are kind of screwed if they are already close enough to attack you anyways. You can say that you can be trained in unarmed combat, but guess what? You also have to be trained with firearms to properly use them. The average person is not properly trained with a firearm. A pistol can only do so much, and if you are already in a situation where your attackers are close enough and outnumber you, I doubt the average person could even draw their pistol. Previously quite a few of you who support guns said you do need to be trained with firearms to properly use them. Did some of you change your opinion for some reason?

 

Do you fail to understand that guns make killing easier? Do you fail to understand that pulling a trigger is easier then stabbing someone to death? It is easier for someone to make a mistake with a gun then with a baseball bat or a knife. Nukes don't do anything on their own either, after all you need a person to launch it right?

Edited February 11, 2012 by marharth

[ginnyfizz]

@ WizardOfAtlantis:

 

He has a point: unlike a court, where you could produce qualifications via legal documents, we don't do that on the internet. For all we know, I could claim to be a former SAS operative with all the knowledge I recycled from Call of Duty. Personal experience here has next to no value, nor do personal anecdotes. I'm not saying you're a liar, but the general consensus is, false until proven otherwise.

Your are rather prone to dismissing peoples qualifications, Wizard has no need to embellish and I for one believe in his veracity. Personal anecdotes are perfectly valid when presented as such, so you speak only for yourself. Last you are implying falsehood while trying to side step ownership, this ruse is paper thin and insulting to read.

 

Yes he is pretty darned insulting, not to mention slanderous, that is why I have stopped posting in debates threads as he made a similar attack on me. I'm not about to attach my qualification certificates here because it would personally identify me, just as Wizard says. I have been on a lot of advice forums where people have been giving financial and legal advice and they never post their certificates either, but no-one questions their veracity.

[Lisnpuppy]

 

This is and always has been an "informal" debates section. Now of course any of you are within your rights (and as good debaters should) to ask for concrete information for the backing up of a person's post. You are free to ignore post which you find lacking and answer others. You may use anything from the dancing numbers of statistics to your own personal experience to set forth your debate opinion. It is up to the other debaters to "counter" the post with their own argument or evidence and not to call someone an idiot of they believe this or insinuate that a person is offering a falsehood.

 

Have any of you ever been to a debate where a topic is chosen and then the debaters have 10 minutes to formulate their debates? Not much concrete evidence then...its more about setting forth a logical argument. However I digress...

 

Not a single page goes by that someone isn't taking a pot shot at someone else. I don't care how you feel about someone and how they debate, what evidence they present or not or what job they held in this life or others. You can say it nicely, intelligently or straight out but I can see even the most subtle shots.

 

Comment on others arguments and evidence (or lack thereof) but this is the last warning I am going to give.. Keep it on topic and stop making things personal and taking things personal. If you all can not act like adults then I am gonna end this topic. In fact I would suggest you all do this yourselves as everyone has painted themselves into corners and the few debates are so circular that they threaten to go down a drain.

 

So please for the last time...use your manners. ~Lisnpuppy