A Nation of Cowards-Discuss

This gave me a laugh:

right to bear arms.JPG

No insult intended. I much prefer your one line synopsis to the overly wordy article.

…I’ll just be going over there now. I would of bet money you were comparing my thesis to yours…heh

no, it isnt wrong because of its age, its wrong because its basing its argument on a sermon made centuries ago.

if you look far enough back in history you can find at facts for at least indirect support of any idea, which is exactly what he did.

not to mention that this whole article is appealing to the conservative judeo-christian type of people it was originally targeted at (being that it was writte n by a “gun rights activist”) by talking about how if you dont own a gun and “defend the life almighty and infallible god has given you” you sin against him.

this argument is wholly ineffective against readers like me who do not believe in god in any way, shape or form, and for whom “god” holds no authoratative value.

ps its closer to 300 years than 200

[quote=“ice_cold_uni6”]

no, it isnt wrong because of its age, its wrong because its basing its argument on a sermon made centuries ago.

[quote]

Do I need to repeat myself about the Constitution?

Well, it wouldn’t be written by someone against guns now, would it? :stuck_out_tongue:

You can say it’s not bad at all to just lay down your life without defending it? God or no god, I wouldn’t want to jsut give up my life if I had a way to fight back.

it seems I was wrong…it’s closer to 100 than 200.

[quote=“monkeyman”]

[QUOTE=ice_cold_uni6]
no, it isnt wrong because of its age, its wrong because its basing its argument on a sermon made centuries ago.

if some asshat is sticking a gun in my face, im going to do whatever he wants becasue if i please him he is more likely to spare me. fighting back will almost certainly result in death or serious injury.

the constitution is a historical document ofextreme importance, but a sermon given in philadelphia in 1747 (closer to 300 than 200) has absolutely no historical significance to anyone else but chuchgoers in philadelphia. calling upon this sermon for support gives nothing to his persuasiveness or credibility. like i said, i you go back far enough one can find support for any idea. the only reason he includes this is in an attempt to show that he is speaking in gods will and has authority to that end.

300 years from 1747 is 2047. 200 years is 1947. 2047 is closer.

[quote=“ice_cold_uni6”]

[QUOTE=monkeyman]

You are assuming that he is less likely to harm you if you do what he wants. I submit that a dead witness can’t testify. Many who are willing to threaten your life for a few bucks, are just as willing to take your life for a few bucks. Mostly because like others on this board they don’t believe there is any ultimate accountablity for their actions. They live by the law of the jungle. Do you think the lion feels remorse when he eats the antelope? Of course not. Why would someone willing to put a gun in your face feel any differently.

The one thing that prisoners consistantly say they fear the most is armed victims. They pretty much know what to expect from cops, but armed citizens have no similar obligation for restraint. My life is threatened the burgler is in for a fight. If the lion knew that everytime he attacked an antelope his chances were 50/50 for survival, what is the likelyhood he would try to attack an antelope?

i think it is terrible to live in a society where if you have no weapon you are considered weak. if we had no weapons in the first place everyone would be on the same level: unarmed and equally dangerous.

if all people had guns, sure, everyone would be equally dangerous, but a burglary could end up a blood bath, both victim and criminal dead or injured.

surely you must find this sad?

Heh, we were arguing over different stuff…I meant the Supreme Court decision, not the sermon

Ok, consider these situations:

  1. Man with a gun comes after you with intent to kill. You are unarmed.
    Outcome- You’re screwed
  2. Man with a gun comes after you with intent to kill. You have a handgun.
    A much better chance of survival here
  3. Man with a knife comes after you. You are unarmed.
    Outcome-Not too much you can do here 'cept run. Nothing wrong with that, asumming you’re faster
  4. Man with a knife comes after you. You have a gun.
    You have an extreme advantage here

Your point? We do. Idealizing won’t help. You’re situation is flawed anyway. With no weapons, the 300 pound, 6’5" man has a pretty big advantage over his 100 pound, 5’ tall woman target, wouldn’t you say?

Yes…the same thing could happen to two unarmed people

You’re being idealistic again. You can’t blame violence on guns. To paraphrase a cliche, that’s like blaming garbage on flies.

Heh, we were arguing over different stuff…I meant the Supreme Court decision, not the sermon

Ok, consider these situations:

  1. Man with a gun comes after you with intent to kill. You are unarmed.
    Outcome- You’re screwed
  2. Man with a gun comes after you with intent to kill. You have a handgun.
    A much better chance of survival here
  3. Man with a knife comes after you. You are unarmed.
    Outcome-Not too much you can do here 'cept run. Nothing wrong with that, asumming you’re faster
  4. Man with a knife comes after you. You have a gun.
    You have an extreme advantage here

Your point? We do. Idealizing won’t help. You’re situation is flawed anyway. With no weapons, the 300 pound, 6’5" man has a pretty big advantage over his 100 pound, 5’ tall woman target, wouldn’t you say?

Yes…the same thing could happen to two unarmed people

You’re being idealistic again. You can’t blame violence on guns. To paraphrase a cliche, that’s like blaming garbage on flies.

even if the situation cant be undone, and this is idealistic (nothing wrong with that) you must consider it sad that we live in a society full of violence?

so do you consider world peace an idealistic, unreachable goal? i dont.

sure, even without weapons there are advantages naturally inherent in the human body, but adding weapons to the mix doesnt help either person.

ex. 300lb man has advantage over 100 lb woman. true.
100 lb woman buys gun to defend herself against man.
man realizes he could be shot if he attacks. he buys weapon.
now we are right back to where we were. either can shoot one another, and the man still has the advantage is he managed to hit when she was off her guard. the situation is not quelled, but rather enraged, and even if the woman wouldve gotten beat up in the original situation, now 2 people can end up dying and bloody, with far worse injuries than before.

the truth is, very few criminals kill just for fun. most are robberies gone wrong or situations where one person is out for revenge. if all the guy wants is money, hell let the victim go when they comply. if the guy is out for revenge, you shouldnt have wronged him in the first place. but if you are facing someone who psychopathically kills on instinct, you are doomed, weapon or none.

but i fail to see how 2 unarmed people could end upseverly injured or dead. its possible, but far less likely if neither have weapons on hand.

I can assure you that if neither of us had a weapon, we would be far from equal. I have 30+ years of Martial Arts training. I am ex military and I am very determined. I am likely much stronger. The one thing that would give you a chance against someone like me is a gun. It is truely the great equalizer. Of course no training with that gun would again put you at a disadvantage.

I only find it sad when the victim has no chance. If the criminal puts themselves in harms way and dies, I can feel no more remorse than the lion does for the antelope. Or the antelope would feel for the lion if it was somehow capable of defending himself. I would only feel gratitude that I was still alive and well. In a position to continue to protect and support my family.

Would I rather there be no violence? Of course, but I am a realist, and this isn’t Utopia. Ignoring the risks doesn’t make them go away.

I don’t have life insurance because I think I’m going to die. I don’t have smoke alarms because I think we’re going to have a fire, and I don’t put our little girl in her child’s seat because I think we’re going to crash. I do all of these things so that if the unthinkable does happen, I have the best tools possible to protect my family.

Well said. And all the gun laws in the world won’t keep guns out of the hands of thugs and criminals!

ok, well every person on earth dosent have 30 years of martial arts under their belt.

and even if they are a criminal, they are still a person. if a teenage prankster steals some cash from your house and you suprise him with a gun and you shoot him in the head and kill him and he is lying dead at age 18 caus some friends dared him to rob you, you would feel no remorse whatsoever?

i find that extremely unfeeling. just because they are a criminal doesnt mean they deserve to die. what about software piraters, should they be put to death? shoplifters?

and if a victim and a burglar are mortally wounded in a gunfight and both die, you dont find that sad? not even in the slightest? if you came upon the scene of your friends house and he lay dead, blood pooling onto the floor, and across the room, another man lay dead, yes a criminal, but nontheless, a human being, killed. and you think “this is how it is supposed to be” ?

But what about the ones that do?

sad, yes, but (also sadly), humans have been fighting since we existed…

See above, Miss America :stuck_out_tongue: (I’m just joking)

This is assuming the man is going after one person. If a guy just goes out one night to mug some woman, and one of them has a gun, he’s just gonna move on to the next one. He won’t go buy a gun, and then track her down.

…so it’s your fault he’s coming after you with a knife because you insulted him? I don’t think so. I’m all for taking responsibility for your own actions, but not for other people’s as well.

Not if you kill them first. It may sound brutal, but if it comes down to it, I will preserve myself. I won’t want to, and I hope to high heaven that I never have to, but that doesn’t mean it might not happen. Besides, most times there is no need to use lethal force. You can disable someone with a gun. It doesn’t have to be a kill. And before you respond saying “Well why can’t they just use something non-lethal like pepper-spray, or a taser?”. If you were a mugger, which one would instinctively frighten you more? A 9mm, can of mace, or a taser? Chances are, since you’re a dumb mugger, you won’t recognize the taser anyway.

this one line says it all. you said it yourself. if you can disable someone with a gun, why do you need one for yourself in the first place?

as for those who do have martial arts training, i never said anything against them, and if they have skills to defend themselves with, good for them. but most people are unwilling to devote so much time and effort to learn martial arts, when, like you said, people have guns anyway.

and it doesnt matter if the thug cant recognize a tazer. the tazer isnt intended as an intimidation tool, its non-lethal ability allows it to be used in a moments notice. hell be on the floor, unable to move from the shocks, and disabled.

First, Criminals pick on weak people. They don’t find someone with a gun to assualt. If they run into one, they are more likely to run. I can attest to that on two occasions.

Second, site your source for very few criminals and their intents. That is wishful thinking, not a fact.

Self defense situations that I am familiar with personally that involved guns never involved firing that gun. The only one that involved injury was a carjacking of an older women in downtown Atlanta. When the carjacker saw her gun, he turn and ran into an oncomming bus. This is the only time anyone that I personally know including myself has had an injury result from defending themselves with a gun.

I own a retail business, and have been in my own business for over 25 years. I have been held up or had someone attempt to rob me three times. Not one has been successful. Not once was a shot fired. Previous to one of those robberies the guy involved had robbed and injured several people. He locked 8 people in a cooler, and was about to shoot the manager if he hadn’t been interupted. Rather than stand and defend himself, he ran out the back door.

I could go on for hours since I not only have first hand experience, but get plenty more of these stories from my best friend who has been a police officer in my county for 15 years. Additionaly the growth industry in the north side of my county is gangs. Currently there are over 50 hispanic gangs, and probably 20 others of various ethnic origins. Makes for some very interesting and sad conversations everytime we get together.

Sad is believing you could never be a victim of a violent crime, or worse you could have done something but chose not to. How would you feel if later emboldened by the success of robbing you the criminal later kills 5 or 6 complient victims?

You seem like a pretty peaceful kind of guy. If someone is threatening you, are you going to pull out the tazer/gun and start firing? Or will you pull it out, and threaten them? Seems to me like the better thing to do would be to threaten them away from you.

But we’re getting way too far into specifics here. What will scare a mugger more is a non-issue compared to the broad scope of gun control.

Ok Bugman, I agree with your stance, but that’s just not fair. It wouldn’t be ICU’s fault if the robber went on to murder after robbing him. That’s just taking guilt too far.

if one never needs to fire the gun, and often times a person with a gun can be stopped before firing, why not carry a fake gun, if its even really necessary at all? if robbers are so afraid of armed victims, surely they wouldnt bother to wonder if it was real, and would run in fear as you say?

well what i mean is, if a guy comes up to mug you, gun in hand, you just immediately start tazering him, as there is no risk of death, and it will stop him instantly. but, i digress, yes, these are quite specific situations that dont necessarily apply to the entire issue.