Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:05 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Seb wrote:
PokerSensation wrote:
Seb wrote:
PokerSensation wrote:
Do I think my property has more value than a burglars life or somebody who attacks my property or life in an unprovoked attacked? LOL HELL YES.


This is the 'empathy erosion' that people talk about.


Thanks for sharing.


It wasn't a judgement. Some of my favourite people are psychopaths.


Ok....thanks for sharing....
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:36 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Me personally, I own several guns. I have several AR-15 style rifles, shot guns, hand guns, etc. Why? I do have some for protection, (obv. I don't need all of the guns I have, just for protection), hunting, (again not all are for hunting), I shoot competition, and I just love to shoot for a hobby just as some of you might enjoy playing flag football, ping pong, racing cars, etc.

According to many of you I should just freely give up my firearms to be destroyed (over $25k worth of guns). Why? Because I own guns I'm evil?

Lets talk realistic. A gun ban in the U.S.A. is never going to happen, the finacial hit would be unreal to say the least. The jobs lost would be in the 100's of thousands.

Now gun owners say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" you respond with "yea, people with guns!" (I can't believe I even have to explain this, my 5yr old daughter understands this) When we say "guns don't kill people" we're referring to the gun simply as a tool, when you say "yea people with guns" your saying the only way a person can kill another person is with a gun. There's a flaw in your argument. Fact is people can use bats, knives, rope, cars, uhall vans filled with explosives, or how about jets being flown into buildings! Does the saying make more sense now?

Fact is evil people are going to do evil things it doesn't matter what tools they use.

We're all poker players here so maybe a math problem will make more sense. 1 crazy guy with a gun + 12 innocent people unarmed = 12 dead people (maybe 13 if crazy guy kills himself). 1 crazy guy with a gun + 12 unnocent people 5 are armed = 3-6 dead including crazy guy. This is what we mean when we say "if more citizens would learn, train, and arm themselfs lives would be saved.

I carry a gun on me everywhere I can legally carry a gun. Someone did make a good point in that if someone was stealing my car and I have my gun on me, I'm going to get a good look at the guy and call the cops. I agree life is more valuable than any object, but if that guy trys to take one of my kids, he's going in the ground, not even a decision.

Now I doubt I changed anyones mind but maybe you can understand our point of view a little better.
pembo
Full House


Joined: 20 Mar 2011
Posts: 1020
Location: Marske-by-the-Sea/Cambridge

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:03 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:


We're all poker players here so maybe a math problem will make more sense. 1 crazy guy with a gun + 12 innocent people unarmed = 12 dead people (maybe 13 if crazy guy kills himself). 1 crazy guy with a gun + 12 unnocent people 5 are armed = 3-6 dead including crazy guy. This is what we mean when we say "if more citizens would learn, train, and arm themselfs lives would be saved.

I disagree here, just look at the 1997 LA shout out. Those guys were covered in personal armour, they withstood hail from 9mm (and probably some .45 ACP) fire for over an hour. Most concealed weapons held by civilians is going to be of this caliber (some may have magnum revolvers) and from the information I got, James Holmes was wearing bodyarmour himself.

He's going to be pretty safe from your regular Joe, not only because of the armour, but also the ability of Joe Public to shoot. You say you're a competitive shooter, so certainly you'll have better aim and gun usage than most people, but the everyday man being thrown into a live fire situation, I very much doubt they are going to be able to shoot accurately.

You've also got to consider if people are WILLING to shoot. You can carry your firearm around for personal safety, indeed, if someone tries to rob you, just a quick flash of your gun can be enough to scare someone off. But when you get to it, are you really willing to shoot someone? I'll be the first to admit that I know I'd be hesitant, even if I've just seen a man shoot someone else, maybe with the adrenaline and the confusion of the situation you could, but I know I'd be hesitant.
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:30 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:
Now gun owners say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" you respond with "yea, people with guns!" (I can't believe I even have to explain this, my 5yr old daughter understands this) When we say "guns don't kill people" we're referring to the gun simply as a tool, when you say "yea people with guns" your saying the only way a person can kill another person is with a gun. There's a flaw in your argument. Fact is people can use bats, knives, rope, cars, uhall vans filled with explosives, or how about jets being flown into buildings! Does the saying make more sense now?


This is retarded. If you shoot a gun at someone they're usually dead. If you fight with any other weapon they're almost never dead. Use your brain.
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:18 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Actually the LA shoot out makes my point. No one died in the LA shoot out except the 2 gunmen. You are right in that the police were under gunned, but the bad guys were unable to just walk around shooting unarmed citizens. The LA police dpt (who are hero's in my book) were able to keep the bad guys pinned in a certain area till swat got there to take care of business.

The court house shooting in Tyler TX the bad guy had an AK-47 and body armour and was shooting up the court house trying to kill his wife. An armed citizen drew his gun and returned fire which stoped the gunman for a split second, turned, shot and killed the armed citizen, but that split second saved lives, it allowed the sheriffs dept to come out of the building and return fire and stop the gunman, ultimatley killing him.

I understand he had armor on, and I have thought of what I would've done if I were there and able to carry my gun (that movie theater was a gun free zone so I would not have been able to legally carry my gun). I'm not even going to try because you just never know what you're capable of till you're in that situation, but I will say this, I would've shot back and even if all I did was direct his attention to find cover (I promise he's not going to just stand there and get hit even with body armour it's going to hurt) it would've saved lives.

I'm not saying everyone should carry a gun. I'm saying don't take away my right to own and carry if I choose.


"This is retarded. If you shoot a gun at someone they're usually dead. If you fight with any other weapon they're almost never dead. Use your brain."

Is this a joke? Are you 9 years old? If someone wants someone dead, the tool doesn't matter. "Usually dead" and "almost never dead", these are your arguments? Well how about Timothey Mcvey who used a uhall truck filled with explosives and blew up a building and killed hundreds? If you use a bomb to blow someone up "they're usually dead". Or Sept 11, when terrorist flew jets into buildings and killed thousands? Is that a "usually dead" or "almost never dead"? You tell me, I need to use my brain.[/quote]
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:37 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:
...
If you use a bomb to blow someone up "they're usually dead". Or Sept 11, when terrorist flew jets into buildings and killed thousands? Is that a "usually dead" or "almost never dead"? You tell me, I need to use my brain.


That's a pretty convincing argument for banning guns right there.

Explosives are hard to come by - there have been very few occasions over the past 50 years where people have blown things up to kill people.

Hijacked aeroplanes are hard to come by - there have been very few occasions over the past 50 years where people have killed using them.

Guns are relatively easy to come by - there have been dozens and dozens of occasions where someone has gone on a rampage and killed and maimed people.

The argument about using another tool to do the job is fallacious - if this last person didn't have a gun he probably would have found it too hard to acquire explosives - so the most likely tool he would have used as an alternative is a knife - that means maybe 1 dead and 1 or 2 injured; that's the difference banning guns would make on these big stories. Plus the thousands and thousands of differences with smaller incidents throughout the country.

It's pretty telling when the news report on a gun massacre refers to it as 'the latest gun massacre' - rather than 'the gun massacre'; which is what they do when something happens like this in almost every other country in the world.
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:11 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
[quote="Jon MW"]
codeman77 wrote:
... If you use a bomb to blow someone up "they're usually dead". Or Sept 11, when terrorist flew jets into buildings and killed thousands? Is that a "usually dead" or "almost never dead"? You tell me, I need to use my brain.
"That's a pretty convincing argument for banning guns right there. Explosives are hard to come by"

All I had to do is google homemade bombs and let me tell you, it's easier and much cheaper to buy the stuff to make homemade bombs than to buy a gun. Tim Mcvey used fertilizer and diesel fuel for his.

What about molotov cocktails? Doesn't get much easier than that.


-" there have been very few occasions over the past 50 years where people have blown things up to kill people."


Where are you getting your info? I could bury this forum with news articles where people have blown things up to kill people. Heres just a couple you can look up.

Aug. 23 2003 Brian Douglas Wells had a time bomb straped to his neck, it went off and killed him.

Sept. 15 1963 a bomb was used to blow up the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, killing 4

Oct. 12 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by a suicide bomber killing 17.

July 7 2005 a sieres of bombs went off in London killing 52 people.


" Hijacked aeroplanes are hard to come by - there have been very few occasions over the past 50 years where people have killed using them."


According to wikipedia from 1950 to 2010 there has been 98 hijackings in the world.

According to CNN from 1949 to July 2013 there has been 11 mass shootings in the US.


"The argument about using another tool to do the job is fallacious - if this last person didn't have a gun he probably would have found it too hard to acquire explosives -"

I think I've prooved otherwise
Barny
Mobster


Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 1136

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:37 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:


Oct. 12 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by a suicide bomber killing 17.

July 7 2005 a sieres of bombs went off in London killing 52 people.


" Hijacked aeroplanes are hard to come by - there have been very few occasions over the past 50 years where people have killed using them."


According to wikipedia from 1950 to 2010 there has been 98 hijackings in the world.

According to CNN from 1949 to July 2013 there has been 11 mass shootings in the US.





If you're really gonna include a bomb attack by Al-Qadea carried out in the middle east against the US military; a bomb attack in Europe and all the last centuries' world wide hijackings (deadly or otherwise) and set them against specifically mass (rather than all) shootings in the USA then you are clearly hellbent on proving a point rather than getting to the truth.
_________________
If it wasn't for luck I'd lose every tournament I played...If I wanted to manage a bankroll I'd be a bank manager.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:40 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Barny wrote:
codeman77 wrote:


Oct. 12 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by a suicide bomber killing 17.

July 7 2005 a sieres of bombs went off in London killing 52 people.


" Hijacked aeroplanes are hard to come by - there have been very few occasions over the past 50 years where people have killed using them."


According to wikipedia from 1950 to 2010 there has been 98 hijackings in the world.

According to CNN from 1949 to July 2013 there has been 11 mass shootings in the US.





If you're really gonna include a bomb attack by Al-Qadea carried out in the middle east against the US military; a bomb attack in Europe and all the last centuries' world wide hijackings (deadly or otherwise) and set them against specifically mass (rather than all) shootings in the USA then you are clearly hellbent on proving a point rather than getting to the truth.


Especially as when people were killed in all but one of those hijackings - they were shot.

The plane itself has only been used to kill on 9/11
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:10 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:
Is this a joke? Are you 9 years old? If someone wants someone dead, the tool doesn't matter.


Your argument in favour of guns is that most gun deaths are premeditated murders. This is transparently false.
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:41 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Re: freedom vs control
I don't think smoking and car accident deaths are relevant. After all, car deaths are accidents, smoking deaths are self inflicted but gun deaths are (usually) murder.

'It was Professor Plum in the Library with the Nissan' has never been uttered during a game of Cluedo.

Re: what form gun control should take, and how to implement it
As I understand it there are already controls, such as not being able to own a gun if you have a criminal record. This is obviously a good thing and can be built on.

If you wanted more control you could start gradually. Raise the legal age that someone could bear arms, while raising the legal age that someone could join the police force and army, would be a good start. At the same time, keep it legal for younger people to use guns for sport (in designated areas).

What would the gun lobby argument against that peice of legislation be?
Leus
Rigged


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:37 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I think 'our' view of guns is very different than in the US.

The arguments there are a bit more likely to take this form
"Is it really fair that a law abiding citizen should be prevented from buying a modern automatic assault rifle over the counter on demand, or is that yet another erosion of the liberties of citizens by overbearing Government?"

I haven't heard anyone say they are opposed to sport shooting. It's just that shooting people, in most advanced democratic countries, is strictly reserved by common consent as a function of the state, as is the administration of justice.
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:46 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Could a justification for gun ownership ever be made on the basis that we as in the masses need to protect ourselves from government?

An example could be where the masses were strongly against the invasion of Iraq. Granted, our military is pretty irelevant but we pay for this financially and with the cost of our lives, while a small elite benefit. If the masses were armed could the crime of Iraq still have happened? Would we also lose our civil liberties one by one (which is designed to increase government power) in the name of 'counter terrorism'?
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:50 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
PokerSensation wrote:
Could a justification for gun ownership ever be made on the basis that we as in the masses need to protect ourselves from government?

An example could be where the masses were strongly against the invasion of Iraq. Granted, our military is pretty irelevant but we pay for this financially and with the cost of our lives, while a small elite benefit. If the masses were armed could the crime of Iraq still have happened? Would we also lose our civil liberties one by one (which is designed to increase government power) in the name of 'counter terrorism'?


What are you suggesting?

That we could have lead an armed coup d'etat to overthrow the government and hence prevent the Iraq invasion?
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Leus
Rigged


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:53 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
This is what the ballot box is meant to prevent.

It's arguable how effective our democracies are, so I suppose heavily armed mobs are a viable alternative if you can live with the downsides.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Non-Poker General Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum