You're misunderstanding me. I wasn't talking about laughing it off that I reacted in a bad way but that I laugh it off now when people say things to me like that. All the other times I've engaged in a fight at school was because I was being bullied and physically attacked, so of course I always fought back.
hmm. Well, lets see. Likely. Well, maybe. But being that a correlation studies do not prove causation, I could say.. "Okay and...?" Well.. Okay. And...?. How do I know it was correlation? Because it is more "Likely". I was talking about number of school shootings that actually occurred, not the likely chance of it occurring. Children fearing for their lives because of uncontrolled circumstances... Again, you prove me right. What study was this? I wish to bookmark for future as a counter-argument I must address. Plus, It was only a hypothesis, I didn't do an archival study on it or whatever lol. Next... I can disagree, but I do see the validity of that statement. Having a gun in your pocket wont keep you any safer, just as having a knife in your pocket won't keep you safer, just as knowing fighting moves/styles won't keep you any safer, just as a couple of police officers won't keep you any safer than XYZ item. Yes, they are valid. But my point is that having something that could overpower an offender could make a attacker second-guess. eg, knowing that they practice krav-maga or whatever will/might discourage most people from engaging in hostile behavior. Knowing that the victim might have a knife will discourage people who aren't handy with knifes away from attacking. (And yes, knowing there is a police officer somewhere on campus might discourage people from fighting.) But do you see what I'm trying to get at? And yet, there are things called accidents in the dark While not restrictions, imo, but a quick education on how to lock a gun up is likely to be in order. It could be quick, painless and easy. If I could have it my way, I'd ask all the sellers to give ask the buyer to demonstrate how to lock a gun up (through the chamber). It can easily be done by having just 1 extra check box on the background check/license/etc. Even the weakest lock made out of durable metal should keep most children away. (Like the $10-$20 ones... If you can afford a firearm, you can afford a $15 dollar lock) There are flaws, but eh. And lastly.. You sir, are a real man. EDIT: Tim: Because it is good to have these debates.
I stopped reading your post after this statement. Police Officers do too keep you safer. For one, they actually know how to use a gun and know when it's appropriate to use it. Furthermore, the presence of a policeman may stop someone from committing a crime in fear of going to prison. Sure, there's a select few that don't give a fuck, but the majority of murders aren't going to kill someone in front of a police officer. Maybe you aren't, but I really hope that you aren't arguing that if the police can have guns, so can the people. Unstoppable at what?
Well thanks for not reading my post completely. I feel the respect there. Okay So Police officers will make it more safer. Well, does more officers make more safer? Yes, they know how to use firearms for the most part, and when it is appropriate to. Often, they also carry a non-lethal as well (likely to be a taser) But I have plenty of friends who own firearms and know how to use one, and how to use one safely. Though they wouldn't think to use it against another, if they must, they know what they must do to defend themselves. So police officers aren't the only ones who know how to use a gun, and when it is appropriate to use one. Other people know as well. To further my point I'm originally pushing for, is that... Yes, the presence of a police man may stop someone from committing a crime in fear of going to prison yes, the presence of a martial arts person may stop someone from commiting a crime in fear of retaliation. And etc.. til firearms. I'm using an argument from analogy. It's not perfect, but its quite suitable. Though, if we take a step back and look, its quite sad that a person would want to bring a weapon of any sort and hurt someone on an educational institution. Even punches over something silly. That'd be a poor argument. Rather, Everyone should be allowed to purchase / and own a firearm, with the given conditions (Not a felon, ever been checked into a asylum, and the ones currently set/etc). So, one should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm given that they're not insane/felon/other. And should not be excluded based on social rank/ authority. Now, the two big arguments (Everyone should be allowed/Nobody should be allowed...) is another thread in itself.
Hmm, yeah. They could just have a crazy person detector when people walk in. But seriously, you seem to think that every crazy person out there is in an asylum. It's the complete opposite. Besides, you don't go in an asylum until you do something crazy...felons aren't felons until they commit a crime. Was the person who tried to kill Congresswoman Giffords checked into an asylum? No.
No, I don't. Yes, I know. But is it reasonable to say and conclude "Well, I don't know how many crazy people there are out there. Since we can't tell how many or who will be crazy people, it is best to assume that everyone is crazy then." ? (Crazy/felons, etc) If so, why? If I'm mistaken, clarify please
What I'm saying is that it's impossible to just say "Allright, everyone can have a gun except for the crazy people" because it's impossible to know if someone is crazy or not. The only way to prevent crazy people from having guns is to have strict gun control laws. I'm not assuming that everyone in the world is crazy, I'm saying that there are too many idiots to just let everyone have guns. In a perfect world, everyone that has a gun would just keep it in their house for people that break in. That, obviously, isn't the case.
Are we missing yet again what was posted 10x in this thread? There would be strict guidelines to even obtain a gun. Yall thinkin they're just bein handed out to students and pedestrians. There are rules and guidelines set in place, and for a reason.
You say the same thing over and over and people have posted the same counterpoint pretty much every time. Personally, I give up.
Well, circular arguments usually (i.e always) end up going around in circles, especially when circular logic is used.
Unlike Dean, I'm going to try one last time. Strict gun laws aren't going to prevent crazy people from getting guns. Because, as we have said 10x already, you can't look at somebody or even look at their paperwork and just somehow know that they can't be trusted. Hell, forget "crazy people." Even normal people, given certain circumstances, can slip up. Also, nobody in this thread has made any logical argument regarding why having more guns makes us safer. And really, there isn't one.
Is this to say that the few people must ruin it for everyone else then? continually, it sounds like a general distaste for people, so rather trust them to do the right thing, you take that responsibility out of them and ask another person to do so (aka police officer.) And why does it seem that I'm not making a logical argument when I am? And Jesse, well no. The arguments are not circular so much as they're being repeated. Guns can and have the potential to make us safer in that it disuades people from commiting violence. The same argument can be applied to those who know martial arts, or anything self-defense. In-fact, I'd make the same argument for anything regarding self-defense. -------- If self-defense is a thing everyone has a right to, then it ought to be available to everyone. Self-defense is a thing that everyone has a right to. Therefore, it ought to be available to everyone. A Firearm is an item that can be used for self-defense. Therefore, a firearm should be available to everyone for self-defense. -------- I don't know how much more logical I can get. That's essentially pure logic. One could replace [firearm] for knife, martial arts, etc. Yes, I understand firearm regulation. Yes, I know and understand that we can't know for sure about everyone. But no, we shouldn't disallow many people based on the few people that make the exception to being good. And "few"? Well.. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime (primary source) As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. (Census.gov) Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. (fbi.gov) That equates to around 0.00354% of all firearm murders to population. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" (Book:, please refer to website for source.) This only furthers my argument. I'm aware of the the vulnerability, and criminal justice system part, but one of them is another debate in itself, and another is..well, more facts (Actually predictions, if you check the source: Report: Lifetime likelihood...) But think of that. 69% of felons knew other criminals had been scared off, and 40% had stopped (again, my argument in other posts...) because of the belief of possession of firearms. And these are not prediction statistics as stated before, these are data-collected statistics. (said in another term, These are what is reported, not likely to happen reported.) firearm Accidents happening in home that are non-fatal account for a very small percentage, relative to all other accidents. (0.05%) Fatal firearm accidents only account for a very small percentage again. (0.5%). Actually, there were only 613 total. Comparatively, this is a very VERY rare occurring thing. If you refute this, then all, if not most, pro-firearm arguments are out, and all pro-control arguments are out, since those can be logically determined to their conclusion. In essence: This has to be the end, nothing more can be debated that I can see.(Unless someone brings something up, which I'm starting to doubt now) NOW: this isn't to say everyone should get one, or has to obtain one. I'm saying that it should be available at the gun shop. I'm not also saying that violence doesn't happen, because I know people can abuse things, and a firearm is no exception. But to let a small amount of people (Again, 0.00354% of the population. In fact, my college has more people than that.) make the exception to many people is an erroneous judgement. Oh, also. However. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year So 1 million people have slipped up? Nope.
Well we better only let the police get power ups, wouldn't want all those crazy people firing those koopa shells around!