tyjet3 Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 I can see _it_'s point... Guns need to be better monitored, that all. They don't need to be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow_Diet Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Here's the question then, how would we monitor them? If a monitored gun was being used in a bad way, would we have a special task force to take care of the "problem"? And how can we monitor guns that we don't "know" are in some one's hands (I.E. Almost every AK-47 Osma gives out)?The main problem with either solution is that it takes time, money and detication(sp!!) to make it work, somethings sorely lacking today. I think we should just give people a better environment to live in. If you grow up with guns going off and stuff, you'll get comfterble with it and probably end up caring/using a gun when you grow up (or when you feel like it, in some cases.)What I mean is, teach better morals and give people better learning experiences in life so they don't think that 1) The world owes them one 2) The End Justicfies the Means and/or 3) Violence = Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 In a defensive position, in my own house, make that 90% in my favor. If I'm aware of their presence, they're dead. Only if you're expecting them. If you're not, it could be the first you know they are there is when you hear a gunshot, or get woken up by one, and feel the bullet hitting you. I know my house, and I'll be behind cover with my sights on the only door in.... if they want me dead, they aren't getting it. It would be the same for anyone else. Or, if they didn't have a gun (and you don't either), barricade the door, lift the phone, call the police. Not only do you not have a mess to clear up (left by the body), you do not have a death on your conscience, and the guy's still alive so you may be able to find out why exactly he wanted you dead. Now of course this might be different for other cases.... but let's look at getting attacked outside somewhere. To be generous, I'll even give the attacker a 75% chance of winning. It's a lot higher than that. If he has got a gun, the very first sign he's trying to rob you is probably going to be him shoving his gun in your face. You going to try pulling your gun then? But that's still suicide odds for the criminal... try to harm/rob four people and they're dead. Is it going to be worth it to try to get that wallet? Even if not a single shot is fired, the knowledge that the victims are armed and capable of fighting back with deadly force is going to cut the crime rate. Not if the criminals are also armed and confident that they will be in a position to not allow the victims to fight back. They might even do this by killing the victims just in case they do try to pull a gun and fight back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted July 30, 2004 Share Posted July 30, 2004 Only if you're expecting them. If you're not, it could be the first you know they are there is when you hear a gunshot, or get woken up by one, and feel the bullet hitting you. People don't break into your house to murder you, they break in to steal stuff. They don't want to kill you because it would only add to thier sentence if they get caught. They would also have to be pretty steathy to avoid my alarm and get all the way to my room without me noticing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted July 30, 2004 Author Share Posted July 30, 2004 Only if you're expecting them. If you're not, it could be the first you know they are there is when you hear a gunshot, or get woken up by one, and feel the bullet hitting you.People don't break into your house to murder you, they break in to steal stuff. I was responding to Peregrine's post in which he posed a hypothetical situation in which an intruder was in his house wanting to kill him. In the situation of a robber, it could be the first you know he was there is when you wake up and find your stuff gone, unless you have an alarm, as you say here: They would also have to be pretty steathy to avoid my alarm and get all the way to my room without me noticing. In which case they'd probably cut and run as soon as it goes off, unless they're professional enough to be able to deactivate it. They don't want to kill you because it would only add to thier sentence if they get caught. Or they might kill you as an attempt to not get caught at all, and to give them more time to rob your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberBender Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Or they might kill you as an attempt to not get caught at all, and to give them more time to rob your house. Killing someone is never worth time to steal more stuff. They would get put to death if they got caught. Is that worth a few more bucks? And it would increase the chances of getting caught. It just leaves more evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_it_ Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Here's the question then, how would we monitor them? If a monitored gun was being used in a bad way, would we have a special task force to take care of the "problem"? And how can we monitor guns that we don't "know" are in some one's hands (I.E. Almost every AK-47 Osma gives out)?The main problem with either solution is that it takes time, money and detication(sp!!) to make it work, somethings sorely lacking today. I think we should just give people a better environment to live in. If you grow up with guns going off and stuff, you'll get comfterble with it and probably end up caring/using a gun when you grow up (or when you feel like it, in some cases.)What I mean is, teach better morals and give people better learning experiences in life so they don't think that 1) The world owes them one 2) The End Justicfies the Means and/or 3) Violence = Good. a simple id platform only costs 20 $ to apply its used by the navy seals on their weapons and by some headhunters it reads the palm print of the user and then unlocks the weapon safety maganism and how are you gonna give 1 biljon africans a better life ? thats kinda unrealistic violance can be good if it is protecting yourself (not shock and awe style violance)but to a sertan extent picture this a raper comes up to you (in thinking that u are a woman) and grabs u what can u do u can do nothing and let him rape u you can get a tazer and light his nuts up with 10000 volts or you can blast his head off with a .45 what would u do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow_Diet Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 One, I'm a guy, and two, if I WAS a woman, I'd want that ass hole to suffer, so I volt his nuts to the next era. Believe it or not, America COULD do something more about what's going on it africa, but they choose not to, or atleast, only in small amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_it_ Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 One, I'm a guy, and two, if I WAS a woman, I'd want that ass hole to suffer, so I volt his nuts to the next era. Believe it or not, America COULD do something more about what's going on it africa, but they choose not to, or atleast, only in small amounts. but you wouldnt use a gun to kill him all u do is incapacytate him (dont know the spelling sry) what if you could do that to the burglurar or the guy who robs people on the streets that would make a huge difference instead of just shooting who u think is tresspassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrow_Diet Posted July 31, 2004 Share Posted July 31, 2004 Dieing is the easy way out. Suffering is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.