Jump to content

Photo

Boy Scouts of America


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 08:49 PM

Not true. If you make it harder to get weapons in a large nation such as the US, the number of criminals with guns will drop. This will be because of two reasons, availability and price. Since a nationwide ban(on non hunting type rifles or shotguns not saying a ban on all weapons, but same would apply for that) would make the supply of guns smaller, the price goes up. The idea is that you make the supply small enough that you are going to make guns too pricey for the average corner boy, street thug, wtv to buy and too expensive for a whole organization to provide weapons to it's "employees". While it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate anything from an entire country, whether it be drugs, prostitution, guns, etc, limiting the supply will increase it's price and decrease the number of crimes associated with that particular item seeing as less people would have them.

Garbage. If anything, they should make it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns. If criminals knew more people were packing, there would be less crime. Criminals thrive because they know for the most part their prey is defenseless. If more people had guns, even if you chose not to carry, the criminal would not necessarily know of this. Think of if say ten members in the Batman audience in Colorado were packing. Obviously, it wouldn't have been avoided but perhaps it could have been stopped sooner.
  • 0

#62 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 06 August 2012 - 10:56 PM

Garbage. If anything, they should make it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns. If criminals knew more people were packing, there would be less crime. Criminals thrive because they know for the most part their prey is defenseless. If more people had guns, even if you chose not to carry, the criminal would not necessarily know of this. Think of if say ten members in the Batman audience in Colorado were packing. Obviously, it wouldn't have been avoided but perhaps it could have been stopped sooner.

If, this thinking is true, then we should not be limiting firearms sales but rather subsidizing them. We already require citizens to be each other's keepers for things like helping the injured, so this would just be the next step. I'm a little concerned though that in a situation, like Colorado, where the good citizens must stop the mass murderer, that if they are not good enough at identifying the bad guy(s), that the good ones turn their guns on each other by mistake. That would be very regrettable, though if it were rare, I guess it would be better than having killers get 100 more people in between.

Crimes of passion, confusion, and accidents are my main concerns with making guns pervasive; vigilanteism a bit less so. In an ideal world, we would develop some self-defense mechanism that's actually defensive, rather than fighting fire with fire. Sounds like science-fiction though.
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#63 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 09:15 AM

If, this thinking is true, then we should not be limiting firearms sales but rather subsidizing them. We already require citizens to be each other's keepers for things like helping the injured, so this would just be the next step. I'm a little concerned though that in a situation, like Colorado, where the good citizens must stop the mass murderer, that if they are not good enough at identifying the bad guy(s), that the good ones turn their guns on each other by mistake. That would be very regrettable, though if it were rare, I guess it would be better than having killers get 100 more people in between.

Crimes of passion, confusion, and accidents are my main concerns with making guns pervasive; vigilanteism a bit less so. In an ideal world, we would develop some self-defense mechanism that's actually defensive, rather than fighting fire with fire. Sounds like science-fiction though.


It's not like they give concealed carry permits or licenses to anyone that shows up at the door. Even in Texas you need a background check, and for a concealed carry permit you need to sit through a class on what constitutes legal self-defense and be certified in gun safety. The "crimes of passion" with a firearm in any meaningful sense are very rare. Despite all the claims that road rage incidents are going to turn into blood baths, that hasn't really materialized.

Also, being able to own a firearm for self-defense, at least in your home, is a Constitutional right. Same as one has a right to vote or a right to free speech. Just because you have those rights, doesn't mean you are required to vote or to express political views.

Yes, it is true that legalized firearm possession probably result in more homicides. I say probably, because you can't measure the amount of homicides that are prevented by a law-abiding citizen having a gun. It's not just the amount of times that an armed person actually uses one in self-defense, but also the amount of times a criminal decides not to act by concluding that the potential victim will be armed. By the same token, due process requirements, such as the exclusionary rule, results in more homicides. All rights, including the right to bear arms, comes with a price that one should accept.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#64 Devils Dose

Devils Dose

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts

Posted 07 August 2012 - 10:25 AM

I'm not saying mandate it. Subsidize it. We offer driver's ed to students for free. A generalized self-defense course (not just about using guns) doesn't seem so ridiculous.

I don't consider a loose screw who decides to kill in a crime of passion to be the only danger though. You're kind of insane if you allow emotion to drive you that far. Most people who get really worked up though, (I think) want to hurt the targets of their anger, either physically, emotionally, or monetarily. It's more likely that the road-rager chooses to shoot at the person's tires than at their head, but the outcome could still be more than they bargained for.

As for criminals backing down, if they're really of a tough, dangerous mindset, they'll know that they still have the upper hand because their targets don't want to use the gun.
  • 0
Season Ticket Holder since Jan.2009
Section 226 Row 2 Seats 15-16

#65 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 01:55 PM

They've tried that with heroin and cocaine and people get that just fine. I suppose it's a little more difficult than if you could get it at CVS, but it's abundant. People without a pot to piss in will spend all of their income on drugs. A street thug that makes his living on violence will find the money necessary to purchase a gun.

The people who will have guns if there is a ban are criminals. The vast majority of street thugs don't buy them legally, but pay a premium for them on the blackmarket, which will continue to happen if there's a ban. For every mass shooting nut job who buys a gun legally, there are hundreds of street thugs, who are barred from owning a firearm because they won't pass a background check that don't. If there is any kind of drop off it'll be marginal at best. In the meantime, law abiding citizens who would otherwise want to arm themselves will be defenseless.


You're comparing apples to oranges here. Drugs aren't manufactured by reputable organizations that have to comply with laws as guns are. Drugs are able to be sold in a truly free market system and are not subject to rules and regulations in the same way that legitimately manufactured goods are. It's not like there's a way to buy a weapon without it first being bought legally. I'm sure some weapons come from overseas, but I doubt that accounts for a large portion of guns in this country or even guns used in the process of committing a crime. Therefore it's not like a guy can say forget buying a gun from the store, I'm gonna go to my underground gun dealer to buy it. If drugs were legal, I'd GUARANTEE you that people would pay more to buy it from a legitimate source than from the black market. Plus when there's a legal avenue to purchase, the black market it usually just a resale of legally purchased weapons at a slightly higher price.
  • 0

#66 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,800 posts

Posted 12 August 2012 - 02:45 PM

You're comparing apples to oranges here. Drugs aren't manufactured by reputable organizations that have to comply with laws as guns are. Drugs are able to be sold in a truly free market system and are not subject to rules and regulations in the same way that legitimately manufactured goods are. It's not like there's a way to buy a weapon without it first being bought legally. I'm sure some weapons come from overseas, but I doubt that accounts for a large portion of guns in this country or even guns used in the process of committing a crime. Therefore it's not like a guy can say forget buying a gun from the store, I'm gonna go to my underground gun dealer to buy it. If drugs were legal, I'd GUARANTEE you that people would pay more to buy it from a legitimate source than from the black market. Plus when there's a legal avenue to purchase, the black market it usually just a resale of legally purchased weapons at a slightly higher price.


What you're saying might be somewhat relevant if you could somehow go back in time and put the government in control of all arms manufacuring and distribution. Otherwise, what you're suggesting involves making criminals of about 50 million people overnight.
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#67 mrthemike

mrthemike

    Cursed_Man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,192 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:22 AM

Hey mouse, just wanted to commend you for what you did.

I'm also enjoying the blatant ignorance from the right wing in this thread. It's really great.
  • 1

Sole Posted Image of Emmy Rossum



#68 MantaRay

MantaRay

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,426 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 11:22 AM

Hey mouse, just wanted to commend you for what you did.

I'm also enjoying the blatant ignorance from the right wing in this thread. It's really great.


AMEN
  • 0
I was wrong to ever doubt the powers of Lou Lamoriello.
IN LOU WE TRUST @Manta04


Posted Image

#69 NJCroMag

NJCroMag

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,436 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:12 PM

Hey mouse, just wanted to commend you for what you did.

I'm also enjoying the blatant ignorance from the right wing in this thread. It's really great.


Hear-hear!

You're okay in my book, Mouse.

Keep fightin' the good fight!
  • 0
"A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness."

#70 point

point

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts

Posted 16 August 2012 - 03:11 PM

I thought this thread was about the Boy Scouts?

I learned to shoot a .22 when I was in the Scouts. I am disappointed in the position they have taken regarding gay boys. How do they tell if an eleven year old kid is gay? The thing I most liked about Scouts was that you didn't have to be any kind of an athlete to advance. And I wasn't much of an athlete, believe me. IMHO, the Scouts should be open to all boys, not just the ones who pass the gaydar test.
  • 0
2 C6H12O6 > 2 C2H5OH + 2CO2

#71 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:53 PM

I thought this thread was about the Boy Scouts?

I learned to shoot a .22 when I was in the Scouts. I am disappointed in the position they have taken regarding gay boys. How do they tell if an eleven year old kid is gay? The thing I most liked about Scouts was that you didn't have to be any kind of an athlete to advance. And I wasn't much of an athlete, believe me. IMHO, the Scouts should be open to all boys, not just the ones who pass the gaydar test.


I think the real issue isn't so much gay children, seeing as until kids get closer to their teen years I doubt one would really be able to tell, but rather boy scouts who have grown up and now want to give back to the boy scouts by being a scout leader, wtv and that if they're gay, they're locked out.
  • 0

#72 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,314 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 12:35 AM

mouse, if it makes you feel any better, 1994 Mitt Romney stands behind you 100%: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
  • 0
Posted Image

#73 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:57 PM

What you're saying might be somewhat relevant if you could somehow go back in time and put the government in control of all arms manufacuring and distribution. Otherwise, what you're suggesting involves making criminals of about 50 million people overnight.

I don't know what you're talking about. All I was saying is that when there's a legal avenue and an illegal one, people usually try the legal one first. I was never suggesting that gov't need to control manufacture and distribution of all weapons. I only was saying that comparing gun control to drug enforcement is silly and wasn't a very good comparison.

Secondly, less guns=less crime. That is not my opinion, that is scientific fact that is backed up by large amounts of data in many studies. I will not argue this because facts aren't disputable, especially not this one. As someone said before, having more people with guns doesn't make anyone safer. This is especially so with incidents involving crowded areas, i.e. Columbine, Aurora, etc. When it's crowded and it's unclear what is going on because you jumped to ground too fast to see a shooter, then you peek out and oh gee, thank goodness, there's 12 other people with guns now all firing in different direction, but don't worry, they killed the initial shooter with one bullet.......it's just too bad they killed 40 other people afterwards because no one knew who was who. That's how that situation is going to go. This is NOT because it's impossible to use guns safely, but rather that the people with guns would need EXTENSIVE training and range time to be efficient and accurate enough a shot to react and decipher which idiot with the gun is the real shooter and which others think they're fvcking John Wayne.

Thirdly, even if the gun laws are relaxed to where every man, woman and child can legally buy a ak-47 with free grenade launcher attachment! It doesn't change the fact that many private business don't think that makes their places of business safer and won't let you in with it anyways and that's their right to refuse entry. So I still don't see how more people carrying guns outside a place of business save the people being shot, unbeknownst to them, inside of it.
  • 0

#74 Devils Pride 26

Devils Pride 26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,032 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:10 PM

I don't know what you're talking about. All I was saying is that when there's a legal avenue and an illegal one, people usually try the legal one first. I was never suggesting that gov't need to control manufacture and distribution of all weapons. I only was saying that comparing gun control to drug enforcement is silly and wasn't a very good comparison.

Secondly, less guns=less crime. That is not my opinion, that is scientific fact that is backed up by large amounts of data in many studies. I will not argue this because facts aren't disputable, especially not this one. As someone said before, having more people with guns doesn't make anyone safer. This is especially so with incidents involving crowded areas, i.e. Columbine, Aurora, etc. When it's crowded and it's unclear what is going on because you jumped to ground too fast to see a shooter, then you peek out and oh gee, thank goodness, there's 12 other people with guns now all firing in different direction, but don't worry, they killed the initial shooter with one bullet.......it's just too bad they killed 40 other people afterwards because no one knew who was who. That's how that situation is going to go. This is NOT because it's impossible to use guns safely, but rather that the people with guns would need EXTENSIVE training and range time to be efficient and accurate enough a shot to react and decipher which idiot with the gun is the real shooter and which others think they're fvcking John Wayne.

Thirdly, even if the gun laws are relaxed to where every man, woman and child can legally buy a ak-47 with free grenade launcher attachment! It doesn't change the fact that many private business don't think that makes their places of business safer and won't let you in with it anyways and that's their right to refuse entry. So I still don't see how more people carrying guns outside a place of business save the people being shot, unbeknownst to them, inside of it.

You are over looking the simple fact that criminals will always have guns. Always. End of story. I want to be able to defend myself legally god forbid I ever encounter a situation like that.

Obviously, there are grounds where they definitely shouldn't be permitted. Sporting events, most office workplaces. But if I'm on my own time, doing my own thing going to the grocery store, heading back to my car in an empty mall parking lot, you bet you behind I want to be able to defend myself. Even if I choose not to, if it was allowed, the potential criminal would not know if I was armed or not. Just the fact that I MIGHT be armed defends myself in a lot of situations.

Perhaps, only allow guns that can fire 1-2 shots max.

That said, I am for the harshest penalties possible for people that go off the deep end. Unlike Norway, I believe, where the man who shot up school children is detained to a 'jail' apartment for 20 years.
  • 0

#75 Devils731

Devils731

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,504 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:17 PM

This is NOT because it's impossible to use guns safely, but rather that the people with guns would need EXTENSIVE training and range time to be efficient and accurate enough a shot to react and decipher which idiot with the gun is the real shooter and which others think they're fvcking John Wayne.


There's evidence that training time and proficiency at training doesn't tell you anything about how well someone will handle a gun in a real life situation. Having live fire going off around you is too different and fear inducing to simulate or prepare for in a training environment.
  • 0
Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind


Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

-Anonymous

Keeper of Section 212-213's wayward step

#76 ATLL765

ATLL765

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:26 PM

You are over looking the simple fact that criminals will always have guns. Always. End of story. I want to be able to defend myself legally god forbid I ever encounter a situation like that.

Obviously, there are grounds where they definitely shouldn't be permitted. Sporting events, most office workplaces. But if I'm on my own time, doing my own thing going to the grocery store, heading back to my car in an empty mall parking lot, you bet you behind I want to be able to defend myself. Even if I choose not to, if it was allowed, the potential criminal would not know if I was armed or not. Just the fact that I MIGHT be armed defends myself in a lot of situations.

Perhaps, only allow guns that can fire 1-2 shots max.

That said, I am for the harshest penalties possible for people that go off the deep end. Unlike Norway, I believe, where the man who shot up school children is detained to a 'jail' apartment for 20 years.


I'm not suggesting any restrictions on where you should or should not be able to take a gun. I'm only saying that there' many places where the no matter what gov't regulations(or lack of) will mean you can carry your weapon in there. So I don't understand where you standing outside with a gun, helps a person inside being shot.

Also, criminals will always have guns, mostly true. But if it's harder to get guns, supply will dwindle and prices go up. I explained this clearly quite difficult concept earlier in this thread, but the basic point is that less legal guns=less criminals with guns. Most guns used in crimes started as legally purchased weapons, therefore it is easy to speculate that if there is less legally purchased guns, guns will be harder to find second-hand which is where the illegal gun is born.

Also "jail apartment", nice condescending tone towards a country that seriously lacks the type of gun crime America does and provides a prison system, not run by private interests that are only concerned with how many inmates are there and how much crappy office furniture they can force them to make while being paid pennies. The prison system was not meant to house the amount of people it does today in the US and was not designed to keep people imprisoned for a lifetime or lifetimes. It's supposed to be a place where you separate those who are dangerous and rehabilitate them into being a productive member of society. This does not happen in US prisons. In the US, you go to prison for drug possession and you come out knowing that next time to you need drugs, there's a million illegal ways to get the funds to do so. The US prison system is a joke.


There's evidence that training time and proficiency at training doesn't tell you anything about how well someone will handle a gun in a real life situation. Having live fire going off around you is too different and fear inducing to simulate or prepare for in a training environment.


That just even further proves my point that more people with guns does not make any situation safer.

Edited by ATLL765, 24 September 2012 - 01:27 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users