Originally Posted by Kytro Of course you can. You need to protect yourself only if something threatens you. A person going into battle will have a greater need for defence than joe blogs. Yes, you need to protect yourself only when threatened - however you cannot predict when that will ...
05-06-2007, 09:50 PM
| #121 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard  Communist Moscow 
| Originally Posted by Kytro Yes, you need to protect yourself only when threatened - however you cannot predict when that will happen, so being prepared for dealing with a threat only makes sense. 
__________________ Perhaps the sentiments contained in the preceding post, are not yet sufficiently favorable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. - slightly modified from Common Sense, Thomas Paine, 1776 I am Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas... I am the champion of the Constitution.  | ||||
     |
|
05-07-2007, 01:37 AM
| #122 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by thomez There is nothing wrong with being prepared, but people usually do so in approximation the the likely threat. People don't drive tanks around unless they need to.
What I was saying is that probability that you will need a gun in most of your day-to day life is quite low. If you take a look at the probability of being the victim of mass-shooting vs being the victim of a car accident the accident is probably going to be higher. How much effort do people go to to mitigate that risk? I'm not saying don't carry a weapon, I have made that clear, I am saying the threat and thus the defense of requiring it are exaggerated. The reason people want to carry because it makes them feel safer (the same reason some people want no-one to carry). | ||||
| |
|
05-07-2007, 05:10 AM
| #123 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist
| Originally Posted by Kytro This is correct. But on the other hand not having one when you need it is going to give you a high probability of dying.
So in my life I may not need to have a gun on me. But if a situation comes up where I do need it and I don't have it, I'm completely fucked. So it doesn't just make people "feel safer" like you keep saying. Carrying actually does make people safer if/when the need for self-defense arises. | ||||
| |
|
05-07-2007, 07:05 AM
| #124 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by 7960 The same can be said of many things though, I cannot see why carrying a weapon is really any different. Having the right tool at the right time will be useful, does this mean you should plan for every low risk situation and carry those items around. How many people who carry a gun also carry other tools?
Once again the point isn't that the gun isn't useful, but the risks of not having one are not significant enough (unless you have some fore-knowledge) to argue that carrying is anything more "feel good". Yes it could be useful, but that really isn't the point. Originally Posted by 7960 It can. This does not mean it does. There very well may be cicumstances where it could cause more harm than it prevents.
| ||||
| |
|
05-07-2007, 10:50 AM
| #125 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by Kytro It's more rare that a screwdriver is the difference between life and death.
| ||||
| |
|
05-07-2007, 07:50 PM
| #126 | ||||
| Baka Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| Originally Posted by 7960 So can they way you drive, how often you service your car. What food you eat, if you smoke etc.
Originally Posted by 7960 I have not argued that people shouldn't be allowed, just that the justification is over-exaggerated. People should still be allowed to be prepared for things, even if it is not likely if they want to.
The only justification I can see for not allowing it is if you are untrained or an obvious risk to society | ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 04:41 PM
| #127 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| the police with superior firearms were there before any student could have went to his car and got it anecdote does not apply /thread | ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 08:36 PM
| #128 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim who said they would need to go to their car?
 | ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 08:39 PM
| #129 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim The shooting started in a dorm room. Usually your bedroom is a great place to store your firearms. Even if they had to go to their cars, they are most likely parked right outside.
And the police dont have superior firearms, they usually have shitty 9mm pistols | ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 08:45 PM
| #130 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 and then they bust out an ar-15, and an 870 express
| ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 09:53 PM
| #131 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| the police had more than 9mms big university police usually have a lot more firepower than many police districts | ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 10:14 PM
| #132 | ||||
| For those about to rock...  libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Not my university's police... if anything goes REAL bad, they just call ATL PD
__________________ http://www.corruptapedia.com/ You can call me Aaron Burr the way I drop Hamiltons. | ||||
| |
|
05-12-2007, 11:29 PM
| #133 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim it doesn't matter because they never got to the scene of the crime until a mass murder had already taken place
| ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 12:26 AM
| #134 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by thomez a the guy with a gun in his car would have got their earlier...yeah
anyway, the anecdote doesn't apply, as i said /thread | ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 01:43 AM
| #135 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim you said it, but you failed to provide any evidence. Explain how the hundreds of people in their dorm rooms would not have been able to access their firearms before the cops arrived ?
| ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 09:50 AM
| #136 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim how about a guy with a gun on his hip?
 | ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 11:50 AM
| #137 | ||||
| For those about to rock... libertarian Atlanta, GA
| Originally Posted by thomez That's the part I think he's missing.
| ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 02:12 PM
| #138 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Off-duty police officers carry their weapons all the time The killer was still able to murder several people before an off duty cop could "pin him down" (nice change from the rambo stories we usually here about hoe people would be) It's a "hero" story, not exactly noted for their accuracy: Off-duty but armed with a .45-caliber handgun, he exchanged fire with 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, who had killed five people and wounded four in less than six minutes at the Salt Lake City mall. Joined by a Salt Lake City police officer who arrived three minutes after the first 911 call The guy armed at the scene took 6 minutes for his lazy ass to get to the shooter, the cop was there in 3 minutes from the shooting Actually makes the case that cops are pretty reliable to show up promptly to properly take care off these problems, we didn't have dozens of mall owners shooting each other wondering who the killer was Again, these facts do not apply to VA Tech in anyway, the police were there in quicker than 6 minutes, or the time it takes to get to a car and back at VA Tech /thread | ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 03:45 PM
| #139 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim that disproves your theory. A citizen with a firearm on their hip stopped the crime.
| ||||
| |
|
05-13-2007, 04:10 PM
| #140 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| I'm still not so sure why it matters how long it would take to get to your car and back  | ||||
| |
