Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 121
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    Not always true. I grew up in a very small town in Maine where a girl was removed from her home, taken into a small cave behind her house in the middle of the night, bound, raped, and stabbed to death. That's what doing nothing and waiting on the police can do. You can't just assume someone breaking into your home is there to take the valbales and leave, unless they indicate so.
    A person not only has the option, but the duty to protect their family however they can when threatened. The issue is how much force is necessary to protect without it becomming excessive. the answer to that is situation dependant.
    And even then, the idea that you should let that person take your belongings and call the cops afterward must be advice given from someone who has never experienced that scenario. A burglar broke into my families house and stole our TV. We called the cops and they came out and did up a report. We asked what they planned to do and they basically said "well if it shows up in any pawnshops we'll get it, but I'd just assume you lost a TV".

    Essentially, they won't do Jack...

    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    The base rate of home invasion is very low. The rate of those where the criminals are interested in anything but stealing your **** is a rare subset of a low probability event.

    So home invasion where there is no harm to anything but property >>>>>>>> home invasion where there is intended harm to you or your family.

    Thus the probability that a fire arm will escalate the situation therefore is rather high.

    I have no doubt that most soldier or police officers have the training to show the restraint that is necessary, and the intelligence to conduct themselves in a manner that doesn't escalate the situation. But just cause you have had gun safety training does not mean you are ready to enter a combat situation. The stress of that situation is not something that you can prepare someone for without real training (I believe). So you have a guy , untrained for the stress of combat, sneaking around their own house like they have seen on theTV, prepared to use deadly force on a person who is likely there to steal his tv and has a good probability of being armed himself. Bang bang bang.

    I don't disagree with the right to bear arms. I just think we should be honest about the above situation.
    While I agree about the probability of an incident happening I don't think mothers and fathers will find much solace if their kid is abducted or harmed by "statistically it was a very rare occurence"...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gormans Mic View Post
    The examples of gun owners who act or are blood thirsty like that are also the rarity. I also bet many of the people who say "lord just give me a chance" are mostly just talking **** on the internet. I know a few. The reality is that you don't know someones intent when they break into your home. I would also hope and think most gun owners are looking to get the person out 1st. But I would also assume anyone who keeps coming at me has the worst intentions and react accordingly. They're the ones in MY home.

    The scenario where the police are not available right away is not really "rare". Many people live in spread out rural areas in this country. The population isn't as high as the cities, but who cares. The constitution protects everyone.
    Not just that but impoverished areas in large metro areas are also subjected to long waits for police response due to the heavy volume of crime. Many places the wait time for cops in the area is over and hour and knowing in my neighborhood in Portland, OR it takes about 25-30 minutes for Cops to respond to anything that isn't Homicide...
    2014 Bulls Forum NBA Redraft Champions!

    PG: Jose Calderon / Aaron Brooks
    SG: Wesley Mathews / Tony Wroten
    SF: Chandler Parsons / Andrei Kirilenko
    PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Kyle O'Quinn
    C: Roy Hibbert / Kelly Olynyk

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,366
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post



    While I agree about the probability of an incident happening I don't think mothers and fathers will find much solace if their kid is abducted or harmed by "statistically it was a very rare occurence"...


    .
    And how would they feel if their dad got shot over a tv?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    And how would they feel if their dad got shot over a tv?
    Obviously not very good, but the important thing to remember in that scenario would be that someone unlawfully intruded into their private property with the intent to commit crime and then ultimately shot the father while doing so.

    It is important to remember that the actions of the criminal are to be blamed on him and him alone. I keep hearing if there wasn't a gun in the house nobody would've died. How come it isn't, well if they didn't break into the house unlawfully there wouldn't be a need for the gun?
    2014 Bulls Forum NBA Redraft Champions!

    PG: Jose Calderon / Aaron Brooks
    SG: Wesley Mathews / Tony Wroten
    SF: Chandler Parsons / Andrei Kirilenko
    PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Kyle O'Quinn
    C: Roy Hibbert / Kelly Olynyk

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,366
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Obviously not very good, but the important thing to remember in that scenario would be that someone unlawfully intruded into their private property with the intent to commit crime and then ultimately shot the father while doing so.

    It is important to remember that the actions of the criminal are to be blamed on him and him alone. I keep hearing if there wasn't a gun in the house nobody would've died. How come it isn't, well if they didn't break into the house unlawfully there wouldn't be a need for the gun?
    I'm not blaming anyone... But dead is dead. Decisions are made by people everyday. Do I walk down this dark alley in the bad part of town? Sure if I get stabbed in that alley it's not my "fault" but understanding probability and not succumbing to the availability heuristic or the base rate fallacy can help you live longer and better. (wikipedia it)

    If the odds are greater that you are going to hurt yourself or get one of your family members hurt than protect them from getting hurt, why do it? I'm not saying it's right or good.

    Let's say a mugger tries to hold you up on the street, what is the loss if they take your wallet, a couple hundred and an awful trip to the DMV. Is that worth taking a greater risk of your life by pulling a gun? Hell I don't even think a wallet is worth a criminal's life. Well maybe the trip to the DMV, but probably not.
    Last edited by flips333; 12-03-2012 at 09:14 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I'm not blaming anyone... But dead is dead. Decisions are made by people everyday. Do I walk down this dark alley in the bad part of town? Sure if I get stabbed in that alley it's not my "fault" but understanding probability and not succumbing to the availability heuristic or the base rate fallacy can help you live longer and better. (wikipedia it)

    If the odds are greater that you are going to hurt yourself or get one of your family members hurt than protect them from getting hurt, why do it? I'm not saying it's right or good.

    Let's say a mugger tries to hold you up on the street, what is the loss if they take your wallet, a couple hundred and an awful trip to the DMV. Is that worth taking a greater risk of your life by pulling a gun? Hell I don't even think a wallet is worth a criminal's life. Well maybe the trip to the DMV, but probably not.
    First, I am enjoying the discussion between you two. Valade, please don't let this distract from whatever you would have posted.

    Second, I think in terms of a home invasion, there are obviously a lot of variables. If a person is properly trained on how to use a firearm responsibly, its effectiveness in this kind of situation would have to be greater, althugh I haven't found any statistical data to back that up. I beleive if you put a Beretta 9mm in my hands if someone broke into my home, I would have a better chance of getting them out without anyone actually getting hurt than if you did the same thing with somone who had not been trained.

    Second, if someone wants to take my wallet, I would just laugh and gladly hand it to them. I am divorced. They can try all they want, those cards won't work. My Ex wife stole all my money long before I will have been mugged, and the VT DMV will just mail me a new license. If someone wants to hurt me in the street, if they have a gun, well, I'm basically ****ed- hopefully just figuratively. These situaitons are very different though, and the response to them would likely look very dfferent.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,603
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GasMan View Post
    Fox is not generally a good example of a news channel and neither is MSNBC. Your team (such a stupid concept) is just as interested in rallying the left around their talking points.


    I couldnt disagree more.
    MSNBC, may be hyper partisan, but they do not LIE.They dont Incite.The dont use , fear,or hatred, or anger as motivational tools.
    They present a case, which has the "liberal bias" that actually doesnt exist in the MSM,and let the viewer decide.
    On Fox even when they throw out a D for Oriely or hannity to feast on, what they are doing is so transparent and offensive its amazing.

    1st, all the "R" team personalities are all runway model attractive,Then when they present a D, they are trolls, hair all wild and unkept, clothes all frumpy, overweight, unattractive.
    Then they have them make the worst possible case for a D view, or even worse they will present a Extreme rt. View, have the "D" present a Consevative standpoint as if it Left leaning, and then take a middle stance between the two, to convince viewers that the far right view they are selling is actually a moderate view!(LOL)

    Morning Joe,Now,Andrea Mitchel,Up with Chris hayes,Rachel Maddow,Mellisa Harris perry,..are all excellent sources of factual information, although their politics is on their sleeves, they dont attempt to mislead.
    I absolutely am shocked at the depth of hate and contempt and anger that fox is attempting to sow almost every single second of the day.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stephkyle7 View Post
    I couldnt disagree more.
    MSNBC, may be hyper partisan, but they do not LIE.They dont Incite.The dont use , fear,or hatred, or anger as motivational tools.
    They present a case, which has the "liberal bias" that actually doesnt exist in the MSM,and let the viewer decide.
    On Fox even when they throw out a D for Oriely or hannity to feast on, what they are doing is so transparent and offensive its amazing.

    1st, all the "R" team personalities are all runway model attractive,Then when they present a D, they are trolls, hair all wild and unkept, clothes all frumpy, overweight, unattractive.
    Then they have them make the worst possible case for a D view, or even worse they will present a Extreme rt. View, have the "D" present a Consevative standpoint as if it Left leaning, and then take a middle stance between the two, to convince viewers that the far right view they are selling is actually a moderate view!(LOL)

    Morning Joe,Now,Andrea Mitchel,Up with Chris hayes,Rachel Maddow,Mellisa Harris perry,..are all excellent sources of factual information, although their politics is on their sleeves, they dont attempt to mislead.
    I absolutely am shocked at the depth of hate and contempt and anger that fox is attempting to sow almost every single second of the day.
    I think you would be right if you were talking about Maddow- she's a bit condescending, but I will watch her. I remember Olbermann definitely using vitriole and hatred in his diatribes, and Mathews is simply too stupid to be taken seriously, but he is literally a babbeling, spitteling fool who race abaits like I pull obscure movie quotes. Shultz has his fair share of hateful diatribes as well. If we were to agre to watch MSNBC during the same period of time, it might be easier for us to actually reference specific examples. Unfortunateely, I am travelling right now, but if you want to pull up the discussion again in two or three weeks, I'd be happy to bump this and we could compare- it might be interesting. Pick one network each week, and discuss how we react to its covrage. Although Dbronc may not be overjoyed with the prospect, as media oriented threads tend to get heated.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,603
    vCash
    1500
    Olbermann got fired for among other things donating to a democratic campaign fund, which is something Fox people do regularly...Mathews, and ED are pretty bad...I was kinda specific about which shows To select...conversely, I haven seen one show...not one on Fox news that wasnt divisive and almost every story is how the Ds are destroying the country.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,301
    vCash
    1500
    I hate Olbermann's voice. Especially when he was on Sunday Night Football. Also I can't stand Martin Bashir. Truthfully the only one I can actually listen to is Maddow.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I'm not blaming anyone... But dead is dead. Decisions are made by people everyday. Do I walk down this dark alley in the bad part of town? Sure if I get stabbed in that alley it's not my "fault" but understanding probability and not succumbing to the availability heuristic or the base rate fallacy can help you live longer and better. (wikipedia it)

    If the odds are greater that you are going to hurt yourself or get one of your family members hurt than protect them from getting hurt, why do it? I'm not saying it's right or good.

    Let's say a mugger tries to hold you up on the street, what is the loss if they take your wallet, a couple hundred and an awful trip to the DMV. Is that worth taking a greater risk of your life by pulling a gun? Hell I don't even think a wallet is worth a criminal's life. Well maybe the trip to the DMV, but probably not.
    I understand probability and culpability in terms of high risk scenarios, I just question that "slippery slope" that is triggered by the ideology of "it's not worth your life". Because really, what is worth your life? Very little.

    We are essentially giving criminals free reign to take whatever they want whenever they want by not fighting back at all. The more crime the less likely the police are to actually apprehend any of these people due to the heavy volume, and the less likely they are to be caught means they will do it more often, it is a vicious cycle.

    That's not to say risk aversion should be abandoned. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the "broken window" theory that helped drastically reduce NYC's crime. In that same vein, merely putting the little sticker or sign that says "gun owners house" will probably deter a criminal from entering that particular house, provided they believe there is actually a gun on the premises.

    I think the key to the issue is effective firearm training and screening procedures for those that should be allowed weapons. A good analogy for me is vehicles. In order to drive a vehicle you need a license. When someone cuases a traffic fatality without a license people don't point to the car as the culprit as they do with guns, they realize the responsibility belongs to the person driving the vehicle.

    Now the counter argument to this is that a vehicle serves another purpose besides merely causing harm, which is all a gun is designed to do. My counter to that is twofold. Firstly, so what? Is a death caused by something not designed to cause death any less fatal than one caused by an instrument designed to cause death? In both instances a death has occured, and it is the rate of death and manner, not the instrument that should be called into question.

    Secondly, people will argue the benefits of vehicles outweight the amount of deaths they cause. I argue the same for weapons. Disregarding personal safety, the benefit of being able to rise up and overthrow our government should it become necessary is absolutely worth the risk of dying at the hands of a firearm.

    The founding fathers agreed, to me it is merely the cost of freedom, as true freedom is impossible without that last final check on the government (revolution).
    2014 Bulls Forum NBA Redraft Champions!

    PG: Jose Calderon / Aaron Brooks
    SG: Wesley Mathews / Tony Wroten
    SF: Chandler Parsons / Andrei Kirilenko
    PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Kyle O'Quinn
    C: Roy Hibbert / Kelly Olynyk

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,366
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I understand probability and culpability in terms of high risk scenarios, I just question that "slippery slope" that is triggered by the ideology of "it's not worth your life". Because really, what is worth your life? Very little.

    We are essentially giving criminals free reign to take whatever they want whenever they want by not fighting back at all. The more crime the less likely the police are to actually apprehend any of these people due to the heavy volume, and the less likely they are to be caught means they will do it more often, it is a vicious cycle.

    That's not to say risk aversion should be abandoned. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about the "broken window" theory that helped drastically reduce NYC's crime. In that same vein, merely putting the little sticker or sign that says "gun owners house" will probably deter a criminal from entering that particular house, provided they believe there is actually a gun on the premises.

    I think the key to the issue is effective firearm training and screening procedures for those that should be allowed weapons. A good analogy for me is vehicles. In order to drive a vehicle you need a license. When someone cuases a traffic fatality without a license people don't point to the car as the culprit as they do with guns, they realize the responsibility belongs to the person driving the vehicle.

    Now the counter argument to this is that a vehicle serves another purpose besides merely causing harm, which is all a gun is designed to do. My counter to that is twofold. Firstly, so what? Is a death caused by something not designed to cause death any less fatal than one caused by an instrument designed to cause death? In both instances a death has occured, and it is the rate of death and manner, not the instrument that should be called into question.

    Secondly, people will argue the benefits of vehicles outweight the amount of deaths they cause. I argue the same for weapons. Disregarding personal safety, the benefit of being able to rise up and overthrow our government should it become necessary is absolutely worth the risk of dying at the hands of a firearm.

    The founding fathers agreed, to me it is merely the cost of freedom, as true freedom is impossible without that last final check on the government (revolution).
    I was suggesting that the life of the criminal is not worth most crimes, some I have no doubt I would kill them before I let them physically touch family or friend.

    I don't disagree as far as rights are concerned. To remove guns from our society the constitution would need to be changed.

    There is one more argument you didn't consider. Most traffic fatalities happen with two licensed individuals.

    I don't believe effective firearms training could train someone how to use a weapon responsibly minimizing harm in high stress situations. These are the kind of things the military and the police spend weeks training and refreshing.

    Lastly guns are not a price of freedom... There are plenty of free societies that outlaw guns. The idea that people will use their guns to overthrow the government is antiquated.

    Many of these countries have the added benefit of far lower crime rates as well. So the criminals are not running wild in places without large populations of citizens with guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8,775
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I was suggesting that the life of the criminal is not worth most crimes, some I have no doubt I would kill them before I let them physically touch family or friend.

    I don't disagree as far as rights are concerned. To remove guns from our society the constitution would need to be changed.

    There is one more argument you didn't consider. Most traffic fatalities happen with two licensed individuals.

    I don't believe effective firearms training could train someone how to use a weapon responsibly minimizing harm in high stress situations. These are the kind of things the military and the police spend weeks training and refreshing.

    Lastly guns are not a price of freedom... There are plenty of free societies that outlaw guns. The idea that people will use their guns to overthrow the government is antiquated.

    Many of these countries have the added benefit of far lower crime rates as well. So the criminals are not running wild in places without large populations of citizens with guns.
    I agree that most traffic fatalities are between two licensed drivers, however this discounts the minimization effect the licensing process and training has on the number of traffic fatalities. While training will never completely eliminate accidents in either case, if you believe the training, as minimal as it is, needed to get a drivers license has minimized to some extent the amount of traffic accidents we see then surely you believe firearms training has/would have the same effect (the degree may vary, but the basic premise that it would reduce accidents is the same).

    Your paragraph concerning the weeks police officers and Soldiers spend getting the necessary training speaks to the amount and degree of training, not between training vs non-training. Would you be amenable to people owning firearms if they had to go to a physical 2 week course that taught proper weapons safety and put the people through several "high stress scenarios" to learn how to better handle weapons in pressure situations?

    As to the idea that many free soceities don't have guns, I respectfully disagree. They are free only so long as the constructs of their government hold to their freedom without the use of force deterring them. They are susceptible, at any moment, to the whims of the government oppression by virtue of the fact that they can't fight back.

    We've seen it throughout history countless times. It may happen slowly, but power corrupts, and any entity with power will always want more power. We are seeing it slowly happen to our very own country. The Patriot Act, the suspending of Habeus Corpus, the President using a drone bomb to kill a US citizen, that other thread in the politics forum talking about congress having the right to search through your emails without a warrant.

    We cannot trust to the constructs of legislation in a free goverment to protect us unconditionally. Hitler was elected under a democratic system, and took control under that same system. The threat of revolution, of defiance of the unjust done by our government, must be ever prevalent in the government's mind in order for it to be truly balanced.

    "The people should not be afraid of its government, the government should be afraid of its people"

    The reason so few still believe these ideals is becasue our memory to the dangers of giving up this right has faded as we ourselves have not experienced it firsthand. Look to those who have, specifically the founding fathers, and heed their experience.
    Last edited by valade16; 12-04-2012 at 02:29 PM.
    2014 Bulls Forum NBA Redraft Champions!

    PG: Jose Calderon / Aaron Brooks
    SG: Wesley Mathews / Tony Wroten
    SF: Chandler Parsons / Andrei Kirilenko
    PF: LaMarcus Aldridge / Kyle O'Quinn
    C: Roy Hibbert / Kelly Olynyk

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,603
    vCash
    1500
    all the "personal" firearms in the world wouldnt slow the US military one second from steam rolling through anywhere they wanted...dont kid yourself.

    The Right to bear arms was written in a different world.
    Governments routinely abused peoples rights world wide,standing armies were expensive and rare so two birds with one stone was the idea.

    Now we do have a huge standing army, and at least in our case the Government has 250 years of understanding they exist at our discretion.

    Having firearms is a good thing, but having limitations and regulations would be even better.
    The idea that we need them to protect ourselves from a Government gone crazy is a silly scenario.If it were to happen, a group of middle aged men with neckties around the tops of their head and a few AR -15s will be absolutely irrelevan.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,366
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I agree that most traffic fatalities are between two licensed drivers, however this discounts the minimization effect the licensing process and training has on the number of traffic fatalities. While training will never completely eliminate accidents in either case, if you believe the training, as minimal as it is, needed to get a drivers license has minimized to some extent the amount of traffic accidents we see then surely you believe firearms training has/would have the same effect (the degree may vary, but the basic premise that it would reduce accidents is the same).

    Your paragraph concerning the weeks police officers and Soldiers spend getting the necessary training speaks to the amount and degree of training, not between training vs non-training. Would you be amenable to people owning firearms if they had to go to a physical 2 week course that taught proper weapons safety and put the people through several "high stress scenarios" to learn how to better handle weapons in pressure situations?

    As to the idea that many free soceities don't have guns, I respectfully disagree. They are free only so long as the constructs of their government hold to their freedom without the use of force deterring them. They are susceptible, at any moment, to the whims of the government oppression by virtue of the fact that they can't fight back.

    We've seen it throughout history countless times. It may happen slowly, but power corrupts, and any entity with power will always want more power. We are seeing it slowly happen to our very own country. The Patriot Act, the suspending of Habeus Corpus, the President using a drone bomb to kill a US citizen, that other thread in the politics forum talking about congress having the right to search through your emails without a warrant.

    We cannot trust to the constructs of legislation in a free goverment to protect us unconditionally. Hitler was elected under a democratic system, and took control under that same system. The threat of revolution, of defiance of the unjust done by our government, must be ever prevalent in the government's mind in order for it to be truly balanced.

    "The people should not be afraid of its government, the government should be afraid of its people"

    The reason so few still believe these ideals is becasue our memory to the dangers of giving up this right has faded as we ourselves have not experienced it firsthand. Look to those who have, specifically the founding fathers, and heed their experience.
    I have no clue if the licensing process actually limits accidents on the road. I would guess so but I have no data to back that up.

    I think guns generally lead to violence. I'm not saying they should be outlawed... I'm not trumpeting that. I just think they are unnecessary tools of violence. In flips-land they are not allowed. In America they are...I think this sucks because it means our society is more violent... But it's part of the price of being American I guess.

    Lastly, no gun you have in your home is going to successfully defend against the might of the American military... seriously... that's silly. Hitler's rise to power had nothing to do with the people not possessing guns, and everything to do with a bunch of people liking Hitler. A hand gun will not protect you from the patriot act. A machine gun will not stop a drone bomb from blowing you to smithereens. It's OK to believe this, **** think what you want, but it's a load of propaganda and malarkey that just doesn't make much sense once you think pass the surface of the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,603
    vCash
    1500
    ^ people just dont have a very good understanding of what we are capable of.
    All the sh talking other countries do is like a fly on a Horsesass.
    If we focus a significant amount of our ability on someone, which I would argue we really havent done since ww2.....say for instance in Iran....we would create 1000 square miles of glass in the middle of a lifeless desert.

    Our Guns would not protect us from our Military.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •