Poll about Guns

[BigSqwert]

No, I'm pretty sure the murder and crime rates in Logan Square are higher than where I live.

And whenever I read about a murder in Logan Square it always involves gang retaliation. Since I don't plan on joining a gang in the area or selling drugs anytime soon I'm pretty sure I won't be high on a gangs' hit list.

 

[StrangeSox]

I've never been persuaded by statistical arguments in gun debates, whether used by either side. I don't think an assertion like yours can be conclusively proven or disproven.

 

My thoughts are based on a certain logic, which I freely admit is overly simplistic. If I go to a party attended by 100 people, none of whom has a gun, my chances of being shot at that party are virtually zero. I think that my chances of getting shot increase if even one person at the party has a gun, regardless of whether that person is a trained and responsible off-duty cop, or a crazed, murderous thug. My chances likely go up even more if both a cop AND a murderous thug are there and both armed. Gun supporters like to believe that the cop and the thug cancel each other out; or that if everyone of the 100 people at the party was armed, everyone would be equally safe. I personally think it would be lot more dangerous. Statistics will never convince me otherwise.

 

I realize, of course, that if society at large is the "party," I have no chance of ever attending a party without guns. I would just prefer to attend a party where there are fewer guns, not more.

 

I'm sorry, but that argument is essentially "I believe this and will continue to do so regardless of how illogical my position is shown to be."

 

Would you prefer to attend a party where only the thugs have guns, or where there are more guns and both the thugs and responsible individuals have guns?

 

And whenever I read about a murder in Logan Square it always involves gang retaliation. Since I don't plan on joining a gang in the area or selling drugs anytime soon I'm pretty sure I won't be high on a gangs' hit list.

 

That means you must be safe from all potential violent crimes then.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

The last thing I'd ever want to do is shoot someone. As just about anyone who's ever had to do it can tell you, it sticks with you for a long, long time. However, I hope I wouldn't hesitate for a second if they posed a threat to my loved ones or myself.

I've been to combat FWIW. Which admittedly is a totally different scenario but if my life is involved, there won't be much hesitation if any. Doubly true if it involves my kids.

[lostfan]

Would you prefer to attend a party where only the thugs have guns, or where there are more guns and both the thugs and responsible individuals have guns?

To me, it's really this simple. Anything else is canceled out by this piece of logic.

[BigSqwert]

That means you must be safe from all potential violent crimes then.

No but having a gun wouldn't make me safe from violent crime either.

[DukeNukeEm]

Carrying a weapon isn't about being a "vigilante hero." That's just a typical straw man thrown about by the anti-gun crowd. Carrying a weapon is about being responsible for your own protection and well-being and having the proper tool available when needed. The police cannot always be around and are not there to protect you personally.

.......

Could you also please explain how it infringes on your rights?

Because what if you miss? I have a basic right to not get shot by an idiot with a handgun who tried to be the hero and hit me instead. You carrying a loaded gun around everyone is a direct violation of that right. You're not being just responsible for yourself, you're assuming responsibility for everyone. I dont want a deranged gun nut lunatic protecting me.

[StrangeSox]

To me, it's really this simple. Anything else is canceled out by this piece of logic.

 

I think a caveat needs to be tacked on: If strict gun control actually lead to a significant reduction in crime, it would be a tougher argument to make. It would become an individual liberty/ rights vs. overall societal benefit argument. In reality, even pragmatically gun bans don't make sense.

[lostfan]

Because what if you miss? I have a basic right to not get shot by an idiot with a handgun who tried to be the hero and hit me instead. You carrying a loaded gun around everyone is a direct violation of that right. You're not being just responsible for yourself, you're assuming responsibility for everyone. I dont want a deranged gun nut lunatic protecting me.

He just got done saying that whole line of reasoning was a straw man

[StrangeSox]

Because what if you miss? I have a basic right to not get shot by an idiot with a handgun who tried to be the hero and hit me instead. You carrying a loaded gun around everyone is a direct violation of that right. You're not being just responsible for yourself, you're assuming responsibility for everyone. I dont want a deranged gun nut lunatic protecting me.

 

 

And this happens how often? Virtually never, if not entirely never*?

 

Also, your last sentence is just a poor ad hominem. People who own guns are not gun nuts. People who carry guns are not deranged lunatics. Deranged lunatics are not legally allowed to own guns. Can any anti-gun person here use a valid, logical argument?

 

*This is different from accidental in-home shootings because we're talking about carrying, not home defense. Tragic accidents are rare but they do occur.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[DukeNukeEm]

What if every country in the world had nuclear weapons, would be comfortable with that?

[DukeNukeEm]

Also, your last sentence is just a poor ad hominem. People who own guns are not gun nuts. People who carry guns are not deranged lunatics. Deranged lunatics are not legally allowed to own guns. Can any anti-gun person here use a valid, logical argument?

If you are comfortable carrying a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a target on your waist you're a deranged lunatic.

 

[BigSqwert]

This self defense excuse needs to be dropped. Out of the millions of people in Chicago, 509 people were murdered in 2008. I can't imagine a large proportion of those people murdered were just walking down the street minding their own business. The odds of you getting murdered in Chicago are pretty slim.

[StrangeSox]

If you are comfortable carrying a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a target on your waist you're a deranged lunatic.

 

Resounding "no" to my logic question.

 

The purpose is to defend yourself from a threat.

 

What if every country in the world had nuclear weapons, would be comfortable with that?

 

False appeal to analogy.

 

This self defense excuse needs to be dropped. Out of the millions of people in Chicago, 509 people were murdered in 2008. I can't imagine a large proportion of those people murdered were just walking down the street minding their own business. The odds of you getting murdered in Chicago are pretty slim.

 

Why does it need to be dropped? Because you cannot provide a rational argument against? Study after study has shown that communities and cities which allow citizens to defend themselves tend to have less crime. Cities with strict gun control (like Chicago and DC) tend to have more. Chicago bucked the national trend and actually saw an increase in violent crimes and, in particular, murder this last year.

 

Furthermore, murder is not the only violent crime. Scroll about halfway down for crime statistics. There are tens of thousands of assaults, robberies and rapes each year in Chicago. Are all of those gang-related?

http://www.city-data.com/city/Chicago-Illinois.html

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

If you are comfortable carrying a deadly weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a target on your waist you're a deranged lunatic.

*white flag*

Edited January 16, 2009 by lostfan

[DukeNukeEm]

Resounding "no" to my logic question.

Let's test your rationality.

 

Where do you draw the line on where you can bring a gun? What about courts, schools, bars, crowded train stations? Do you propose just being allowed to carry your death dispenser anywhere you want?

[BigSqwert]

Let's test your rationality.

 

Where do you draw the line on where you can bring a gun? What about courts, schools, bars, crowded train stations? Do you propose just being allowed to carry your death dispenser anywhere you want?

Of course! You never know where someone might want to murder you.

[StrangeSox]

Let's test your rationality.

 

Where do you draw the line on where you can bring a gun? What about courts, schools, bars, crowded train stations? Do you propose just being allowed to carry your death dispenser anywhere you want?

 

More logical fallacy fun! Appeal to emotion!

 

Courts have a reasonable, rational exemption and are secured buildings. Allowing a teacher or principal to carry in an elementary or high school is more of a gray area, but the case can certainly be made. At Columbine, for example, they specifically planned to attack when the one officer who was sometimes at the school, wasn't. This left hundreds of victims unable to defend themselves. Bars and train stations? Sure. Happens every day in numerous states in this country without any issues. Your emotional, irrational fear of guns leads you to believe that anyone who owns one (which is >50% of Americans, I believe) is a lunatic looking to shoot someone, which is absolutely untrue.

 

Of course! You never know where someone might want to murder you.

 

More logical fallacy fun! Appeal to ridicule!

 

You attempted to make a flippant, ridiculing response but helped make my point. You cannot rely on police protection because a) they aren't always around and B) you have no Constitutional right to protection.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[DukeNukeEm]

More logical fallacy fun! Appeal to emotion!

 

Courts have a reasonable, rational exemption and are secured buildings.

It wouldn't make sense for anybody with that kind of faith in law enforcement to carry a gun in the first place. Or do you only trust certain cops and not others? Where does that distinction come from?

Allowing a teacher or principal to carry in an elementary or high school is more of a gray area, but the case can certainly be made. At Columbine, for example, they specifically planned to attack when the one officer who was sometimes at the school, wasn't.

How many high schools are there in America? How many have had a shooting? Same goes for Universities. Isolated incidents are not cause to make an irrational decision that can have major consequences.

Bars and train stations? Sure. Happens every day in numerous states in this country without any issues. Your emotional, irrational fear of guns leads you to believe that anyone who owns one (which is >50% of Americans, I believe) is a lunatic looking to shoot someone, which is absolutely untrue.

alcohol + guns! Man, I had you all wrong when I pegged you a gun nut.

 

I'd also like to know what you plan on doing with your gun in crowded train station. Even you can miss in a room packed with people, Mr. Hero.

[BigSqwert]

You attempted to make a flippant, ridiculing response but helped make my point. You cannot rely on police protection because a) they aren't always around and B) you have no Constitutional right to protection.

Protection from what? I cited the murder rate in Chicago for 2008 which was about 1 in a million. Getting a gun to protect you from a 1 in a million risk seems excessive seeing that it won't necessarily prevent you from being murdered.

[StrangeSox]

Sigh, still not a logical argument to be found.

 

Again, I don't own a gun and haven't fired one in over ten years (I was maybe 12). People who do own guns aren't looking to be "Mr. Hero." This is a retarded belief held by people with irrational fears of a dangerous but inanimate object. How many attempted violent crimes ever occur in a crowded place, aside from nutjob massacres? None, so you wouldn't have to worry about someone wildly firing into a crowd because they wouldn't be defending themselves from anything. They are still allowed to carry the gun in the station to somewhere else where the potential for danger is higher, though.

 

I said an argument *Could* be made for schools, but I didn't make it because I'm not sure where I stand on that.

 

Again, there are plenty of examples of large cities with CCW. And yes, they're allowed in bars and train stations shootouts don't happen! These insane fantasies of anti-gun nuts just don't happen. It's not reality.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Protection from what? I cited the murder rate in Chicago for 2008 which was about 1 in a million. Getting a gun to protect you from a 1 in a million risk seems excessive seeing that it won't necessarily prevent you from being murdered.

 

I cited violent crime, which is in the tens of thousands.

[BigSqwert]

Sigh, still not a logical argument to be found.

Getting a gun to hopefully prevent yourself from being that 1 in a million that's murdered each year? That's logical? Sigh.

[DukeNukeEm]

Sigh, still not a logical argument to be found.

 

Again, I don't own a gun and haven't fired one in over ten years (I was maybe 12). People who do own guns aren't looking to be "Mr. Hero." This is a retarded belief held by people with irrational fears of a dangerous but inanimate object. How many attempted violent crimes ever occur in a crowded place, aside from nutjob massacres? None, so you wouldn't have to worry about someone wildly firing into a crowd because they wouldn't be defending themselves from anything. They are still allowed to carry the gun in the station to somewhere else where the potential for danger is higher, though.

 

I said an argument *Could* be made for schools, but I didn't make it because I'm not sure where I stand on that.

 

Again, there are plenty of examples of large cities with CCW. And yes, they're allowed in bars and train stations shootouts don't happen! These insane fantasies of anti-gun nuts just don't happen. It's not reality.

You're completely ignoring half of my arguments now. You're just calling it a logical fallacy if you dont have a sufficient answer.

 

And you obviously are not rational if you think drunk people should be given guns.

[BigSqwert]

I cited violent crime, which is in the tens of thousands.

Can you cite the statistic that shows how often a person carrying a gun prevents a violent crime from ever occurring to them?

Edited January 16, 2009 by BigSqwert

[DukeNukeEm]

Can you cited the statistic that shows how often a person carrying a gun prevents a violent crime from ever occurring to them?

There's no proof, it's all conjecture. You can check your NRA brochure for more.