How many people are seriously afraid of firearms?

Page 9 of 14 [ 212 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next


Are you afraid of firearms?
I'm afraid of people using them wrongly, but am not afraid of their mere form. 40%  40%  [ 20 ]
I'm afraid of the mere form of firearms. 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
I don't have a problem with firearms. 32%  32%  [ 16 ]
Other stance regarding firearms that you may state below if you care to do so. 14%  14%  [ 7 ]
I don't have an opinion, I just want an option to click that says nothing. 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 50

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Nov 2011, 10:34 am

pastafarian wrote:
No of course I'm not. Violence scares me, in all its forms.


The rioters sure didn't hesitate when it came to violence, so why offer them the kindness of not giving them a taste of their own medicine?

Luckily, a lot of the people involved in those riots are currently being violated in prison, so that's some consolation.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

28 Nov 2011, 12:35 pm

Quote:
Just thought I'd point out that I'm a Brit and I disagree with fraac. Not because I'm obsessed with guns, or even because I personally am particularly interested in owning one, but because, as others and myself have already said, a gun is a tool which a malicious human can use to kill, and if they don't have one, they'll just kill using something else. You can't stop someone who has the intention of killing by taking one tool away from them, it's like speed bumps... Sure, you can hope speeding motorists slow down for them, but someone's who's determined to break the limit will buy a 4X4 and just speed over them like it's nothing. And if you want to kill someone, there are many, many, legal objects you can still use for the purpose. As I also stated before, people still get stabbed and shot regularly in London, despite many types of knives and all guns being illegal. Someone who wants to commit murder won't be put off by the fact that a tool they want to use is illegal - they'll either get one anyway or use something else.


Very few gun deaths are premeditated murders. Most are escalated conflagrations. They wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. Someone would get beaten up or maybe stabbed and everyone would live. I don't think that understanding this is a cultural difference, pastafarian. Failing to understand it seems almost wilful, because it's not complicated.



Last edited by fraac on 28 Nov 2011, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

28 Nov 2011, 12:37 pm

Wolfheart wrote:
Another point to make is that firearms usually escalate violence, for instance, if the shop owners in the London riots had guns, imagine what it would have resulted in if armed people started to take the law into their own hands to protect their property, many more lives would have been lost and the situation would have been far more difficult to control.


To add to this, a single shopkeeper with a gun is not an effective defense against a mob of crazed looters. Sure, the shopkeeper can possibly slay a dozen looters before being overwhelmed by brute force and ignorance.

What happens then? Well, then the rioters are consumed with bloodlust and revenge, more likely to go on a mass killing spree than being contented with wrecking some storefronts and swiping a couple of television. Oh, yeah, and now the looters have the gun they acquired from the shopkeeper. Which will make it easy for them to acquire the next gun, and so on.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


Icyclan
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 231

28 Nov 2011, 12:38 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
pastafarian wrote:
No of course I'm not. Violence scares me, in all its forms.


The rioters sure didn't hesitate when it came to violence, so why offer them the kindness of not giving them a taste of their own medicine?


You cannot reason with violent people, they only understand - and respond - to violence. They see reasoning and compromising as a weakness. Someone who is so far along that he is willing to burn down a house is not going to be swayed by the fancy words of some bleeding heart counselor. The only way to make them stop the violence is to make them feel it.



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Nov 2011, 12:44 pm

Icyclan wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
pastafarian wrote:
No of course I'm not. Violence scares me, in all its forms.


The rioters sure didn't hesitate when it came to violence, so why offer them the kindness of not giving them a taste of their own medicine?


You cannot reason with violent people, they only understand - and respond - to violence. They see reasoning and compromising as a weakness. Someone who is so far along that he is willing to burn down a house is not going to be swayed by the fancy words of some bleeding heart counselor. The only way to make them stop the violence is to make them feel it.


Exactly. Thank you.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

28 Nov 2011, 12:53 pm

fraac wrote:
Quote:
Just thought I'd point out that I'm a Brit and I disagree with fraac. Not because I'm obsessed with guns, or even because I personally am particularly interested in owning one, but because, as others and myself have already said, a gun is a tool which a malicious human can use to kill, and if they don't have one, they'll just kill using something else. You can't stop someone who has the intention of killing by taking one tool away from them, it's like speed bumps... Sure, you can hope speeding motorists slow down for them, but someone's who's determined to break the limit will buy a 4X4 and just speed over them like it's nothing. And if you want to kill someone, there are many, many, legal objects you can still use for the purpose. As I also stated before, people still get stabbed and shot regularly in London, despite many types of knives and all guns being illegal. Someone who wants to commit murder won't be put off by the fact that a tool they want to use is illegal - they'll either get one anyway or use something else.


Very few gun deaths are premeditated murders. Most are escalated conflagrations. They wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. Someone would get beaten up or maybe stabbed and everyone would live. I don't think that understanding this is a cultural difference, pastafarian. Failing to understand it seems almost wilful, because it's not complicated.


I agree with you that it wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. The issue we disagree on I'm assuming, is that if they aren't available to me and you, would a psycho up the street be able to get one and use it on us.

Available = simple to access. Banned = those who follow the law will not own one. Not existing any more is the only way for guns to ever be not available to anyone.

As I have said before, if you or anyone else, could make a device that would cause all guns to cease to exist and all knowledge of them to be removed from everyone's minds, then that would stop gun violence. Otherwise, it cannot happen because people will still get guns.

Look at other things that are banned in the society I live in. Marijuana is illegal where I live. Almost everyone I know smokes it occasionally. I don't, it makes me afraid. My point is, that marijuana, being an illicit substance, is still around and easy to find, and even mentioned openly in many places, is still here. People who like to smoke it know it is illegal and will still obtain it. It's certainly not on the same level as buying a stolen gun, etc, but it's there. Guns will still be there even if they are illegal.

I don't know where I am going with this. Maybe you could combine the two and make everyone who buys a gun, smoke pot on a regular basis, then they really won't want to get off the couch to go shoot anyone else. I don't know. That was not my original point.

Just really though, if the bad guys have one, I want one to even my odds against them, if there is a chance I may end up facing a bad guy.

I would really have no problem with all guns ceasing to exist. But it would have to be global, and include knowledge of guns.

Frances



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

28 Nov 2011, 1:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Still the case remains that whatever is outlawed remains with the outlaws, so the efficiency of modern weaponry is disallowed from those who care to do right but the disallowing of such weaponry means nothing to those who care nothing for laws or anything but their own benefit. The quick and easy murder weapon is within their reach alone then, giving them the tactical advantage to bully and silence easily while they make their financial goals at the detriment of others.


I agree, but with a caveat. Having a prevalence of guns distributed among the populace makes it much easier for anyone to get their hands on a weapon. Break into a house and grab their gun. What is the statistic, that there is one gun for every living American? That's a lot of guns out there for the taking, a lot of guns that can fall into the hands of outlaws. A lot more outlaws with guns than there would be if they had to be smuggled across the border.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

28 Nov 2011, 1:11 pm

Icyclan wrote:
fraac wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
fraac wrote:
Icyclan wrote:
And it's alright for criminals to have guns, as long as law-abiding citizens don't?


Yes. Look at Britain. The police and public don't have guns, only criminals have guns. Who gets shot with guns? Criminals and associates of criminals. This is a perfectly reasonable situation, and it's probably an equilibrium situation so long as politicians don't get panicky.


What? I suppose it doesn't matter that the only thing necessary to fit into the category of "associate of a criminal" would be to make their acquaintance, willingly or unwillingly?


Acquaintances of criminals don't get shot. Look at who actually gets shot. I mean in the real world. In Britain, if you aren't criminal or knowingly associating with criminals you have to be astoundingly unlucky to get shot. I like those odds.

People like to have the illusion of control, that's the problem. Without thinking rationally most people would rather have a gun in a dangerous situation, because they think they're the one in control. Meanwhile everyone else is thinking the same. Idiots.


Here's a scenario: two people hold you up at gunpoint late at night and intend to rob you. Not a far-fetched situation in any of the world's big cities, bar a lucky few. Suddenly robber A accidentally blurts out the name of robber B. Robber B is currently on two strikes (or the equivalent for that particular nation) and is obviously worried about being identified. He's getting twitchy and he's nervously thinking about his next move.

Now, assuming only robber B is armed, would you feel more in control if you had an easy to reach, concealed firearm, or if you were completely defenceless?


This is how I would handle that situation! "Oh My God, RObber B! It IS you! It's been forever! Don't you recognize me? I haven't seen you since 11th grade! How you been? How's your Mama? Oh, put that down right now! Have you talked to slu*ty Girl D from school? I heard she married that one boy she was dating and then divorced. Here, lets forget this and go get a drink, you are obviously paying now. Well, give that back and I'll pay. Come on! It'll be just like old times! Where's your car at?"

That will completely blow their minds! Especially if you do know them.

Of course, that could make you more likely to get shot.

Frances



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

28 Nov 2011, 1:33 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
fraac wrote:
Very few gun deaths are premeditated murders. Most are escalated conflagrations. They wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. Someone would get beaten up or maybe stabbed and everyone would live. I don't think that understanding this is a cultural difference, pastafarian. Failing to understand it seems almost wilful, because it's not complicated.


I agree with you that it wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. The issue we disagree on I'm assuming, is that if they aren't available to me and you, would a psycho up the street be able to get one and use it on us.

Available = simple to access. Banned = those who follow the law will not own one. Not existing any more is the only way for guns to ever be not available to anyone.


Quote:
Just really though, if the bad guys have one, I want one to even my odds against them, if there is a chance I may end up facing a bad guy.

Frances


I don't care if the psycho up the street has a gun. He's extraordinarily unlikely to use it against me. But far more likely, I expect, if he knew I had a gun. Good and bad are subjective - everyone sees themselves as the good guy and anyone bothering them as the bad guy, so I can easily see a situation where someone sees you or me as the bad guy, and when that happens I'd rather not have a gun. Maybe a factor is I'm quite big and don't feel threatened around people. I still wouldn't want British women to carry guns though. Pepper spray seems reasonable.



fraac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,865

28 Nov 2011, 1:44 pm

Quote:
Here's a scenario: two people hold you up at gunpoint late at night and intend to rob you. Not a far-fetched situation in any of the world's big cities, bar a lucky few


I have never heard of anyone being held up at at gunpoint. Your view is hopelessly US-centric. Maybe it happens in Cape Town or Tblisi or Bogota, I wouldn't know. It's not really a first world problem.



OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

28 Nov 2011, 1:52 pm

fraac wrote:
OliveOilMom wrote:
fraac wrote:
Very few gun deaths are premeditated murders. Most are escalated conflagrations. They wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. Someone would get beaten up or maybe stabbed and everyone would live. I don't think that understanding this is a cultural difference, pastafarian. Failing to understand it seems almost wilful, because it's not complicated.


I agree with you that it wouldn't happen if guns were unavailable. The issue we disagree on I'm assuming, is that if they aren't available to me and you, would a psycho up the street be able to get one and use it on us.

Available = simple to access. Banned = those who follow the law will not own one. Not existing any more is the only way for guns to ever be not available to anyone.


Quote:
Just really though, if the bad guys have one, I want one to even my odds against them, if there is a chance I may end up facing a bad guy.

Frances


I don't care if the psycho up the street has a gun. He's extraordinarily unlikely to use it against me. But far more likely, I expect, if he knew I had a gun. Good and bad are subjective - everyone sees themselves as the good guy and anyone bothering them as the bad guy, so I can easily see a situation where someone sees you or me as the bad guy, and when that happens I'd rather not have a gun. Maybe a factor is I'm quite big and don't feel threatened around people. I still wouldn't want British women to carry guns though. Pepper spray seems reasonable.


Well, he wouldn't be likely to victimize you either in the first place if he knew you had a gun. I know quite a few criminals, from my younger days, and they never wanted to get shot at, or shot. So avoiding armed people was a big thing. They also didn't want to go to the electric chair, which was how we killed killers then, so they didn't seek out those with guns to rob.

It's a "Duh" moment.

Oh wait, if they know you have a gun, and they know Frances up the street does not have a gun - which I don't - who will they rob? My caustic wit has never been lethal as far as I know. However, I might talk them to death. Therefore, they will rob me! Because I can't shoot them when they do! I can only yell at them and talk about how they were rude to me the other day in Wal Mart and guilt them into possibly leaving something for me, of myown stuff, which they would be taking from me.

I also never feel afraid of walking at night in any place. I don't know why. I feel that those criminals, lurking in the shadows, are people like everybody else, and a simple "Hey, how you doing?" will freak them right the h*** out if said in a natural tone of voice and they won't bother me.

It usually works. Wow. Rocket surgery here I come!

Or brain science.

Frances



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

28 Nov 2011, 2:07 pm

fraac wrote:
Quote:
Here's a scenario: two people hold you up at gunpoint late at night and intend to rob you. Not a far-fetched situation in any of the world's big cities, bar a lucky few


I have never heard of anyone being held up at at gunpoint. Your view is hopelessly US-centric. Maybe it happens in Cape Town or Tblisi or Bogota, I wouldn't know. It's not really a first world problem.


This used to happen a lot in my old neighborhood in Minneapolis, USA. 3 or 4 times a month, within a few blocks of my apartment. Fancy neighborhood, it was. lots of irresponsible drunk kids with money in their pockets.

This happens in 1st world America because guns are everywhere, easy to come by.

Happened to me once. I thought it was kind of funny, since I was completely broke (and am not paranoid about dying). I said "Do I look like I have any money? What, are you trying to steal my food stamps? You really going to shoot me for that? If you want, we can go to the grocery store and I can get you some food." I showed the guy my empty wallet, he got a closer look at how beat up my clothing and shoes were, the. He got self conscious and just ran away.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Nov 2011, 2:14 pm

Burnbridge wrote:
fraac wrote:
Quote:
Here's a scenario: two people hold you up at gunpoint late at night and intend to rob you. Not a far-fetched situation in any of the world's big cities, bar a lucky few


I have never heard of anyone being held up at at gunpoint. Your view is hopelessly US-centric. Maybe it happens in Cape Town or Tblisi or Bogota, I wouldn't know. It's not really a first world problem.


This used to happen a lot in my old neighborhood in Minneapolis, USA. 3 or 4 times a month, within a few blocks of my apartment. Fancy neighborhood, it was. lots of irresponsible drunk kids with money in their pockets.

This happens in 1st world America because guns are everywhere, easy to come by.

Happened to me once. I thought it was kind of funny, since I was completely broke (and am not paranoid about dying). I said "Do I look like I have any money? What, are you trying to steal my food stamps? You really going to shoot me for that? If you want, we can go to the grocery store and I can get you some food." I showed the guy my empty wallet, he got a closer look at how beat up my clothing and shoes were, the. He got self conscious and just ran away.


You're lucky that he didn't just tell you to shut up by using his pistol.



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

28 Nov 2011, 2:16 pm

Please note also that I went into the PTSD "cold place" while this was happening. The guy's hand was shaking as he held the gun, so I figured he was uncomfortable with holding it and had likely never shot a person. I was doing a mental inventory of what was accessible on my belt that I could stab him with, in the arm or wrist to force him to drop the weapon. So that I could acquire it.

And had it gone to that point, I expected that I would have obtained the weapon and shot him, and likel also been injured in the process. He was hot headed and panicky, I was dead cold inside Ice tends to beat fire in those situations. That time it did. With words.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

28 Nov 2011, 2:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You're lucky that he didn't just tell you to shut up by using his pistol.


I do not believe luck was a factor. Guns are typically used to intimidate in those situations, by those who do not trust their own skills/ferocity enough to be able to burgle without them. I was unimpressed with having the gun pointed at me. That, I believe, was the deciding factor.

If I was carrying a gun and had an attitude of "How dare he hold me up! I'll shoot that jerk before he shoots me!" one or both of us would've been in the hospital, or dead. Likewise, if I'd been terrified of the gun and screamed, I would have been shot as the assailant panicked.

The fact is, because I was unimpressed by the weapon, I was in control.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Nov 2011, 2:25 pm

Burnbridge wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You're lucky that he didn't just tell you to shut up by using his pistol.


I do not believe luck was a factor. Guns are typically used to intimidate in those situations, by those who do not trust their own skills/ferocity enough to be able to burgle without them. I was unimpressed with having the gun pointed at me. That, I believe, was the deciding factor.

If I was carrying a gun and had an attitude of "How dare he hold me up! I'll shoot that jerk before he shoots me!" one or both of us would've been in the hospital, or dead. Likewise, if I'd been terrified of the gun and screamed, I would have been shot at the assailant panicked.


Dude, not everyone who is threatening another with a deadly weapon or is being threatened with one is a Marlene Fisher. Yes, smarter people would not desire to kill due to the potential consequences, but in a blue state like Minnesota they get a lifetime of free room and board for committing murder, and if they kill one of their inmates they even get their own private room away from everyone else. So your gamble with a person who didn't even at first bother to notice that even your clothes betrayed your poverty was unwise. You should have been handing them your wallet as you were speaking rather than trying to give them a lecture about profiling first.