I dont know, If I could predict the future I doubt Id be sitting at work right now.

 

But you can stop a criminal in other ways, death isnt the only answer, because if it is, then society is more lost than I thought.

Do they charge a potential killer with murder if the potential victim kills them first? If you kill a burglar, does the now dead burglar get charged with burglary? I don't think so.

 

Don't defend yourself and get killed - rising murder rates.

Defend yourself, kill the criminal, stagnant or lower crime rates.

 

I am seeing 700 criminals being removed from society at the bargain basement price of a bullet.

 

People, take back your neighborhoods. Stand and defend don't hide from criminals.

No but it gets classified as an attempted burglary in statistics.

I'm surprised they track that if there will not be an arrest or even an investigation of the burglary.

I'm surprised they track that if there will not be an arrest or even an investigation of the burglary.

If one of the 2 people winds up killed you don't think there'd be a report filed?

We have a fundamental difference with our belief in humans.

 

I believe humans are imperfect and prone to mistakes. A bullet is also a cheap price for an innocent victim who is killed when someone misses their intended target.

 

1 innocent life is not worth 700 criminals.

I'm not so certain. We allow police to have weapons and they have killed innocent people. Are you suggesting we should disarm them? I'm not certain that the public has any worse a track record than the police.

That statistic has to be flawed IMO, if anything the USA has shown consequences are not a great deterrent in stoping crime compared to other countries.

That statistic has to be flawed IMO, if anything the USA has shown consequences are not a great deterrent in stoping crime compared to other countries.

But statistics also show that the presence of a gun consistently inflames situations and makes a violent outcome more likely in the event of a confrontation, regardless of who initiates it. If you remove the impediments to carrying and using a gun, then you wind up with more people carrying and more using.

If one of the 2 people winds up killed you don't think there'd be a report filed?

 

Sure there would. Just not attempted burglary. The police would be busy filling out a report on the shooting. I can't see the cops saying "I know this guy is dead, but we ought to charge him with breaking and entering so the crime stats are accurate"? Maybe they do, and it would be useful, but it just doesn't seem like that is how it would work.

Sure there would. Just not attempted burglary. The police would be busy filling out a report on the shooting. I can't see the cops saying "I know this guy is dead, but we ought to charge him with breaking and entering so the crime stats are accurate"? Maybe they do, and it would be useful, but it just doesn't seem like that is how it would work.

But you don't have to file charges for there to be a report of the attempted robbery, in fact it would likely be the exact opposite.

 

If a person is robbed, files charges, and the perpetrator is never caught, is that not a robbery? No charges are filed if the case remains unsolved. Same standard.

But statistics also show that the presence of a gun consistently inflames situations and makes a violent outcome more likely in the event of a confrontation, regardless of who initiates it. If you remove the impediments to carrying and using a gun, then you wind up with more people carrying and more using.

 

I always have people who are in love with guns tell me states that allow you to carry a gun have lower crime rates but never bothered to look up the statistic myself.

But statistics also show that the presence of a gun consistently inflames situations and makes a violent outcome more likely in the event of a confrontation, regardless of who initiates it. If you remove the impediments to carrying and using a gun, then you wind up with more people carrying and more using.

 

The impediments to carrying and using are not effective on the criminals, they continue to carry and use. Fact is, most gang bangers live under a constant death penalty. Those impediments are designed to stop victims from protecting themselves, from sportsman from enjoying their pastime, and honest people from enjoying a nice hobby. You are correct though, things do not escalate if only the criminals have guns. The victim is killed. Only one life lost, not two if the victim gets a lethal shot off.

But you don't have to file charges for there to be a report of the attempted robbery, in fact it would likely be the exact opposite.

 

If a person is robbed, files charges, and the perpetrator is never caught, is that not a robbery? No charges are filed if the case remains unsolved. Same standard.

 

If that was the only crime committed, I agree it would be written up. What I am suggesting is when the police arrive and there is a person lying in a pool of blood dead, the police will be investigating that crime and would not also file a report on the burglary. But I have not tried to find a source. They would have to investigate the shooting and in that investigation the claim of breaking and entry, etc. would have to be investigated, so maybe they do.

The impediments to carrying and using are not effective on the criminals, they continue to carry and use. Fact is, most gang bangers live under a constant death penalty. Those impediments are designed to stop victims from protecting themselves, from sportsman from enjoying their pastime, and honest people from enjoying a nice hobby. You are correct though, things do not escalate if only the criminals have guns. The victim is killed. Only one life lost, not two if the victim gets a lethal shot off.

Like in the case that gave rise to this thread. The right guy was killed.

 

(Seriously, read your own post. it's ludicrous. If both people have guns, two lives are lost, because they both get shots off perfectly aimed, simultaneously?)

I'm not so certain. We allow police to have weapons and they have killed innocent people. Are you suggesting we should disarm them? I'm not certain that the public has any worse a track record than the police.

 

In a perfect world no one would have guns, but you cant close Pandora's box.

 

Id be more fine with people owning guns if they had to go through mandatory training.

I always have people who are in love with guns tell me states that allow you to carry a gun have lower crime rates but never bothered to look up the statistic myself.

 

And I'm not certain that stat is even relevant. For a hypothetical example if I happen to carry a weapon and never get robbed, my crime rate is zero. Do I care that a thousand other people who do not carry are robbed? I would be carrying to protect my family. If they are safe, I have accomplished my goal. Too bad there isn't a stat comparing crime rates of those that carry versus those that do not.

Like in the case that gave rise to this thread. The right guy was killed.

 

(Seriously, read your own post. it's ludicrous. If both people have guns, two lives are lost, because they both get shots off perfectly aimed, simultaneously?)

 

You said more guns escalate the violence and I agreed. When only the criminal has a gun, all the victim can do is run and get shot in the back. Unlike in the movies, most people do not die instantly from gun shot wounds. So one guy gets shot and while down shoots the other. We have escalation. Fact is, if you feel better holding your car keys when a bad guy points a gun at your family and I feel better holding a gun, I think I should have that option and you should have your choice.

In a perfect world no one would have guns, but you cant close Pandora's box.

 

Id be more fine with people owning guns if they had to go through mandatory training.

 

I would to. In Texas there is a pretty solid course before you can carry a concealed weapon. I certainly believe it should be as hard to get a license for a gun as it is to get a license to drive.

I would to. In Texas there is a pretty solid course before you can carry a concealed weapon. I certainly believe it should be as hard to get a license for a gun as it is to get a license to drive.

 

Though only one is a constitutional guarantee. It is interesting to see the contrasts between this debate and the one when any requirements are placed on voting.

You cant kill someone with a vote.

 

The reason for the course isnt to deny someone the right to have a gun, its to make sure that they know how to use it.

 

The better comparison would be that you have to pass an intelligence test to vote, which obviously is not allowed.

 

Though only one is a constitutional guarantee. It is interesting to see the contrasts between this debate and the one when any requirements are placed on voting.

 

You should have to prove you meet the minimum legal requirements to vote.

 

Here is an easy bottom line for me.

 

Criminals have guns and commit crimes. One solution is we should take the guns away from the honest people so the criminals will not be hurt. Maybe the criminals will even stop carrying guns if honest people didn't have them. That just doesn't make sense to me.

You should have to prove you meet the minimum legal requirements to vote.

 

Here is an easy bottom line for me.

 

Criminals have guns and commit crimes. One solution is we should take the guns away from the honest people so the criminals will not be hurt. Maybe the criminals will even stop carrying guns if honest people didn't have them. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course this whole conversation was started by a post pointing out that honest people having more guns present leads to more people getting killed and no change in the crime rate.

 

I'd say an equally easy bottom line is that more guns = more dead people and no change in crime. Because that's what the statistics say.

Then why not legalize drugs too.

 

Its the same idea, criminals are going to have them anyway, so why shouldnt the rest get to enjoy them.

You should have to prove you meet the minimum legal requirements to vote.

 

Here is an easy bottom line for me.

 

Criminals have guns and commit crimes. One solution is we should take the guns away from the honest people so the criminals will not be hurt. Maybe the criminals will even stop carrying guns if honest people didn't have them. That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

What are the constitutionally provided minimum legal requirements for gun ownership?

Then why not legalize drugs too.

 

Its the same idea, criminals are going to have them anyway, so why shouldnt the rest get to enjoy them.

I'm game, just regulate them and make it so that you can't have them on the streets, you have to keep them safely in your own home and can't operate other things when they're present and impacting your judgement.

 

Much like guns.

There are no limits on gun ownership in the constitution.

 

Arguably you should be able to buy a nuclear weapon.

 

And gun rights is probably one of my bigger hypocritical issues, so I usually just use it as a tradeoff. Let me have my drug rights and you can have your gun rights.

Edited June 13, 201213 yr by Soxbadger