The real conspiracy and how flat earthers are contributing to it

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 21, 2015, 12:23:27 PM

Also, do you know what shooting a man does to your concience?  I can't speak from experience here but they say that even if it's a killer that you killed you will still be eaten alive by the guilt and you will never be the same.  Do you want kids to have to go through that?

Do you want untrained, unprepared civilians and everyday homeowners and parents and students and... to go through that?

I do if the alternative is civilians being dead.  Also, if there is a robber in your house then you don't have to kill them, you just have to threaten to shoot and if worst comes to worst you could shoot them in the leg.

Rather than die and never feel that way?

If the criminal didn't have a gun, death is far less likely.
My main point with that post was just to critique Mike's statement. He can't selectively decide to apply the conscience.

I didn't really read much of your post, but I read the first sentence since that seems to be your contention here

Try reading the rest. Case one is especiallly relevant and guns are inherently upsetting.

I loved my BB gun as a kid, but I always knew the danger of what exactly would happen if I used a real gun and did what I did with my BB gun. I was 8.

To be fair, it's hard to say that. You can never know exactly how your mind works, you could just be applying your current interpretation to an old memory, and knowing something in theory is worlds from knowing it in practise.

I do if the alternative is civilians being dead.  Also, if there is a robber in your house then you don't have to kill them, you just have to threaten to shoot and if worst comes to worst you could shoot them in the leg.

Well given that the robber would have a gun too, that a leg is a pretty thin target and civilians are not going to have great accuracy, even assuming you could get to the gun you're relying on an awful lot for that to work without the homeowner getting shot too.
Plus shooting someone even just to cause injury is going to end up disturbing. If they need therapy, financially and psychologically they could well end up worse off than just letting themselves be burgled. I'd argue that a populace willing and psychologically able to cause grievous bodily harm is a recipe for disaster: and that's what you need for guns to be effective.

Why would we, experienced gun owners, take advice from someone who has no gun experience whatsoever? Guns are outlawed in your country. Maybe you should stick to discussing things you're familiar with, BiJane, like tea and biscuits?

It's no use BiJane, gun culture is just too engrained over there. It's their country, I say leave 'em to it.

I am always surprised by how USA people love to feel safe around their guns.
Swimming pools kill more kids than guns in the USA by a factor of about 100, but few are scared of pools.
Also, if someone invades your house and has a gun, chances are he will shoot you first unless he is running around with the lights on.
I am not pro/anti guns, however I do think the argument is a distraction from the real social issues.

I am actually a pretty good aim, I could probobaly hit somebody's leg from 50 feet away if I had 3 seconds to aim.  I havn't ever practiced with moving targets but aiming is definitely easier at close range.

mikeman, if there is an intruder in your home, and you do decide to shoot him, it is far better to kill him than to wound him and have him try to sue you later. 

It's no use BiJane, gun culture is just too engrained over there. It's their country, I say leave 'em to it.

If I only spoke to change peoples' minds I'd perpetually disappointed  This is just entertaining.

Swimming pools kill more kids than guns in the USA by a factor of about 100, but few are scared of pools.

To be fair, you're never at any risk of being chased through your house by someone dragging a swimming pool. Swimming pools are a choice.
Also, the hundred-times statistic is exclusively about children, not an overall measure.

I am actually a pretty good aim, I could probobaly hit somebody's leg from 50 feet away if I had 3 seconds to aim.  I havn't ever practiced with moving targets but aiming is definitely easier at close range.

Three seconds, you'd get shot in the chest if you tried. Add into that the stress of a real-life situation, less than ideal aiming circumstances (furniture in the way, etc)...
You've practised in a relative stress free, clear situation, with a non-human, non-moving target. And good luck getting close without being heard.

mikeman, if there is an intruder in your home, and you do decide to shoot him, it is far better to kill him than to wound him and have him try to sue you later. 

Enjoy your lifetime of trauma.

mikeman, if there is an intruder in your home, and you do decide to shoot him, it is far better to kill him than to wound him and have him try to sue you later.

And that's a failure of the U.S. court system.

And that's a failure of the U.S. court system.

And that's another point, actually. Guns only work if you can trust the system: and I've heard of a hell of a lot of US court cases that really don't inspire that trust. What use are guns when you can be punished for using them in a supposedly justified situation?
At best, guns require a legal and social framework before they can be used in anything approaching a beneficial fashion. You do not have that framework. There's racism leading to non-whites being punished for something far less than would otherwise be legal (eg: Marissa Alexander) for a classic example, and Jroa's possible example of being sued for repelling a home invader, etc.

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 21, 2015, 12:51:51 PM

And that's a failure of the U.S. court system.

And that's another point, actually. Guns only work if you can trust the system: and I've heard of a hell of a lot of US court cases that really don't inspire that trust. What use are guns when you can be punished for using them in a supposedly justified situation?
At best, guns require a legal and social framework before they can be used in anything approaching a beneficial fashion. You do not have that framework. There's racism leading to non-whites being punished for something far less than would otherwise be legal (eg: Marissa Alexander) for a classic example, and Jroa's possible example of being sued for repelling a home invader, etc.

These failures of the system also mean that the poliece cannot be trusted as your only source of protection and sometimes you need to take things into your own hands.  As for the racism thing, that's just a distraction from the real issues.  There are stories about white cops killing black people but those stories would have never been in the news if it was a black person killing a white person, a black person killing a black person, or a white person killing a white person.  Killing happens, and just because it sometimes by chance is a white person killing a black person doesn't mean anything.  Here in the U.S. you get funny looks by mentioning that someone is black, the only racism here that's a probelem here is caused by people taking non-racism too far to the point where they discriminate against the inherently racist white people, but even that is very rare.

I've been called racist for specifying that someone was african-american. 
Somehow. I literally used the word african-american. "Black" was originally an insult.

These failures of the system also mean that the poliece cannot be trusted as your only source of protection and sometimes you need to take things into your own hands.

Great. And then what'll happen to you? Doesn't matter if the system's a mess, if it refuses to let anyone who goes beyond it unpunished.
Beyond that, outside of superhero media, vigilantism is not going to work. Clearly it's something people can abuse: and if you can't trust the system to reliably differentiate between a justified and unjustified case, how exactly do you expect that to end?

  As for the racism thing, that's just a distraction from the real issues.  There are stories about white cops killing black people but those stories would have never been in the news if it was a black person killing a white person, a black person killing a black person, or a white person killing a white person.  Killing happens, and just because it sometimes by chance is a white person killing a black person doesn't mean anything.  Here in the U.S. you get funny looks by mentioning that someone is black, the only racism here that's a probelem here is caused by people taking non-racism too far to the point where they discriminate against the inherently racist white people, but even that is very rare.

Intra-race murders tend to occur because of geographical closeness/accessibility, there's nothing particularly stand out there. Certainly, some people may be oversensitive: consider that's because there is something there to be sensitive about. You get funny looks mentioning race in the US because you've convinced yourselves you live in a post-racial society, that there's no need to acknowledge race because everyone's treated equally... It's a way of neglecting responsibility.
I honestly don't have the time to go in depth into race relations in America, accept it or don't, the fact remains some people are demonized, some people are not, whether or not you believe some of it is race based. With an unbalanced court system, there is no way for guns to work in practise, even if they worked in theory.

Oh Dear God, what did healthy earth just post?

i've done some thinking about gun laws, and the best purpose they could serve is to deter criminals. in that case, the laws are too restrictive. we need access to far better weaponry. it's like nuclear war, every country is capable of starting it, no one wants to because of the consequences.
this would work on a smaller scale too. if better guns and weapons were available, no one would want to hurt or attack anyone because of how they could retaliate. such things as flamethrowers even look intimidating, you wouldn't want to hurt someone dressed up like that, even if they couldn't burn you.
the real response to problems with gun violece, is to improve the standards of weapon available, so that no one would be willing to fire the first shot.

i've done some thinking about gun laws, and the best purpose they could serve is to deter criminals. in that case, the laws are too restrictive. we need access to far better weaponry. it's like nuclear war, every country is capable of starting it, no one wants to because of the consequences.
this would work on a smaller scale too. if better guns and weapons were available, no one would want to hurt or attack anyone because of how they could retaliate. such things as flamethrowers even look intimidating, you wouldn't want to hurt someone dressed up like that, even if they couldn't burn you.
the real response to problems with gun violece, is to improve the standards of weapon available, so that no one would be willing to fire the first shot.

There is this idea that people are deterred by the threat of death. States where the death penalty are imposed do not have a lower murder rate, in fact, they have higher murder rates. Someone is not going to not kill you because you have a rocket launcher, they know their knife can still kill you fine. Although, after he kills you he now has a rocket launcher.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 22, 2015, 05:33:55 AM

i've done some thinking about gun laws, and the best purpose they could serve is to deter criminals. in that case, the laws are too restrictive. we need access to far better weaponry. it's like nuclear war, every country is capable of starting it, no one wants to because of the consequences.
this would work on a smaller scale too. if better guns and weapons were available, no one would want to hurt or attack anyone because of how they could retaliate. such things as flamethrowers even look intimidating, you wouldn't want to hurt someone dressed up like that, even if they couldn't burn you.
the real response to problems with gun violece, is to improve the standards of weapon available, so that no one would be willing to fire the first shot.

There is this idea that people are deterred by the threat of death. States where the death penalty are imposed do not have a lower murder rate, in fact, they have higher murder rates. Someone is not going to not kill you because you have a rocket launcher, they know their knife can still kill you fine. Although, after he kills you he now has a rocket launcher.

have we all died in a nuclear war? did I sleep through that?

threats do deter, when they are clear. the death penalty is not immediate, and many people think they can trick justice or get away with it. no one thinks they can get away from a grenade or rocket launcher when it is meters from them.

if you honestly think a weapon can't deter anything, kindly explain how there hasn't been a nuclear holocaust.

have we all died in a nuclear war? did I sleep through that?

threats do deter, when they are clear. the death penalty is not immediate, and many people think they can trick justice or get away with it. no one thinks they can get away from a grenade or rocket launcher when it is meters from them.

if you honestly think a weapon can't deter anything, kindly explain how there hasn't been a nuclear holocaust.

Context is important. The discussion is about gun laws and criminal activity. It is vastly different from international politics.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 22, 2015, 05:53:57 AM

have we all died in a nuclear war? did I sleep through that?

threats do deter, when they are clear. the death penalty is not immediate, and many people think they can trick justice or get away with it. no one thinks they can get away from a grenade or rocket launcher when it is meters from them.

if you honestly think a weapon can't deter anything, kindly explain how there hasn't been a nuclear holocaust.

Context is important. The discussion is about gun laws and criminal activity. It is vastly different from international politics.

what deters will continue to deter. an immediate, major threats will discourage attacks.

The fact that, generally, murders are done by psychologically unstable people. Namely, psychopaths. They lack any understanding of "punishment", even if that punishment is death.

what deters will continue to deter. an immediate, major threats will discourage attacks.

I agree with that statement (T's&C's apply) what I am saying is that having an occupant which is heavily armed sleeping in a house is not going to deter a criminal who is now also heavily armed. Guns are not deterring them now, and wont deter them later. The problem is not the size or availability of the guns, the problem is you have a criminal in the first place.
You dont fix crime by adding more weapons to the general population.
I live in a country with a serious crime problem, people are killing each other with what ever is available, sometimes even guns, if you gave them guns then they will use that too.

I have not understood what the real conspiracy is. Only that Obama is somewhat involved. But he doesn't forge mountains.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 22, 2015, 09:22:09 AM

what deters will continue to deter. an immediate, major threats will discourage attacks.

I agree with that statement (T's&C's apply) what I am saying is that having an occupant which is heavily armed sleeping in a house is not going to deter a criminal who is now also heavily armed. Guns are not deterring them now, and wont deter them later. The problem is not the size or availability of the guns, the problem is you have a criminal in the first place.
You dont fix crime by adding more weapons to the general population.
I live in a country with a serious crime problem, people are killing each other with what ever is available, sometimes even guns, if you gave them guns then they will use that too.

and what do those people do when they have a gun pointed to their heads? they don't act the same way.
increase the threat, and they will not step out.

you clearly have no understanding of mental issues, misero, if you think psychopaths act like that, psychopathy is a common condition, and they typically become ceos and the like. hollywood is not a reliable source of information.

Most people breaking into your house don't come prepared to kill someone.  If they bring a weapon then it's generally just to scare people and they often don't even bring a weapon at all.  If a robber were to kill or even hurt someone then if they were caught then they would get a worse punishment then they would for ribery and they would also be leaving more evidence behind.  Any criminal with any brains who is just there to steal your stuff would run away at the sight of the home owner with a gun.

Most people breaking into your house don't come prepared to kill someone.  If they bring a weapon then it's generally just to scare people and they often don't even bring a weapon at all.  If a robber were to kill or even hurt someone then if they were caught then they would get a worse punishment then they would for ribery and they would also be leaving more evidence behind.  Any criminal with any brains who is just there to steal your stuff would run away at the sight of the home owner with a gun.

and imagine how they would run faced with an owner with a better weapon. those thieves are already dealt with. the problem is the killers. what do you propose you do about them?
you need to scare them off: stop them breaking in to be a problem.

Killers are not very common.

...Mike, did you just use Dinesh D'Souza as the basis for your conspiracy theory?

The Christian Aplogist convicted criminal who makes shit up for the lulz?

Wow...just...wow.

Killers are not very common.

neither are adult male mormon americans called mike who come on a flat earth forum.
does that mean we should simply pretend you do not exist?

imagine how they would run faced with an owner with a better weapon.

Rocket launchers and flame throwers are just stupid.  I can choose between a Mossberg 590, an M4, AK, or a Steyr AUG.  What would you consider a 'better weapon'?

"Better weapon" is subjective. Close range? Knife. Long-range(10-30 feet), pistol. Very long range? Assault weapon.