Originally posted by pritybettaIt most certainly isn't your point, if you think it is, then that is only because you misinterpreted what I wrote.
That is my point, we do not need [b]ANY gun free zones!!!!!!!![/b]
To simplify it a bit, let's say you have area A and B, both with gun bans. Now A starts allowing guns. A becomes more dangerous for criminals, so they all start commiting crimes in B. The result is that B has (give or take) double the crime, while A has nearly none. If we combine the crime in A and B, then it's till the same as before A started allowing guns. So B follows suit and allows guns itself. The criminals that once came from A to B now have no more reason to stay there as it's as dangerous as A, so they return. A and B now have both have the same crime rates as before this all started.
Originally posted by BartsI do not agree with your last sentence, if A and B both are more dangerous for the criminals, then the criminals would stope committing so many crimes. They may still commit crimes, just not as many. Therefore, the crime rate will go down altogether. And if they still try to commit just as many crimes, the law abiding citizens would be able to portect themselves and most likely kill off many of the criminals, which in turn will lower the crime rate.
It most certainly isn't your point, if you think it is, then that is only because you misinterpreted what I wrote.
To simplify it a bit, let's say you have area A and B, both with gun bans. Now A starts allowing guns. A becomes more dangerous for criminals, so they all start commiting crimes in B. The result is that B has (give or take) double the crime, w ...[text shortened]... so they return. A and B now have both have the same crime rates as before this all started.
Originally posted by pritybettaYeah, that sounds like a great solution - kill off all the criminals! Kill off those who kill the criminals, too, as they become criminals in the process as well!
And if they still try to commit just as many crimes, the law abiding citizens would be able to portect themselves and most likely kill off many of the criminals, which in turn will lower the crime rate.
Originally posted by pritybettaIt probably would decrease, but by how much remains a wide open question. Wheter it's worth the cost is another matter. You speak of law-abiding citizens killing off crimals.However if criminals are running that risk, they'll be far more likely to shoot and kill themselves at the first sign of trouble. By introducing guns, you're upping the stakes, more risk for them, but the same is true for you. I also hate to break it to you, but a criminal chooses it's victim, the time and place of the attack, so more often then not, he has the advantage.
I do not agree with your last sentence, if A and B both are more dangerous for the criminals, then the criminals would stope committing so many crimes. They may still commit crimes, just not as many. Therefore, the crime rate will go down altogether. And if they still try to commit just as many crimes, the law abiding citizens would be able to portect themselves and most likely kill off many of the criminals, which in turn will lower the crime rate.
1 edit
Originally posted by BartsIsn't it easier to find an advantage over an unarmed person? Doesn't a weapon in the hands of a criminal add to the advantage even against unarmed people?
It probably would decrease, but by how much remains a wide open question. Wheter it's worth the cost is another matter. You speak of law-abiding citizens killing off crimals.However if criminals are running that risk, they'll be far more likely to shoot and kill themselves at the first sign of trouble. By introducing guns, you're upping the stakes, more risk f ...[text shortened]... it's victim, the time and place of the attack, so more often then not, he has the advantage.
Originally posted by BartsHow is being able to protect myself uping the risk for me? I train for the supprised attack all the time, and I observe my suroundings so I can see potental problems before they happen. Many go about their buisness thinking nothing will happen and when it does they are not prepared. That is how criminals are able to have a advantage. If everyone was not so blind they may be able to prevent the attack altogether, or they can be prepared for one.
It probably would decrease, but by how much remains a wide open question. Wheter it's worth the cost is another matter. You speak of law-abiding citizens killing off crimals.However if criminals are running that risk, they'll be far more likely to shoot and kill themselves at the first sign of trouble. By introducing guns, you're upping the stakes, more risk f ...[text shortened]... it's victim, the time and place of the attack, so more often then not, he has the advantage.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOf course, actually, it' the whole point of my argument. They're probably getting an advantage anyway, I'd rather have that advantage be a knife in my robbers hand, then a knife in my back so the robber is sure I won't be pulling a gun on him.
Isn't it easier to find an advantage over an unarmed person?
Originally posted by pritybettaI don't care about you or your husband.
My husband and I are trained in guns more than most of the police officers in our town. Did you know that the average officer only trains once or twice a year, where as those who have a CCW(or similer) trains almost every week? We were told this by an ex-police officer, now SWAT/CCW trainer, so we did some resurch on it and he was right. Police officers a ...[text shortened]... ly almost never have to use their guns on duity and most go their whole career not needing them.
I rather stay away from people that are habituals of white supremacist websites.
People that, as soon as they see some spoof website difamating an honorable black civil rights fighter, embraces it as if it was the truth.
Stay away from me. I despise your kind.
Originally posted by pritybettaAnd that might work for you, because, as you say many aren't as prepared as you are. Because of that, a criminal isn't expecting to fight someone like you. Problem is, if everyone were like you, a criminal will be expecting it and will be prepared for it as well. It's a sort of evolution, if the enviroment changes (more people are prepared like you), then criminals will adapt to that and finds ways to overcome those people.
How is being able to protect myself uping the risk for me? I train for the supprised attack all the time, and I observe my suroundings so I can see potental problems before they happen. Many go about their buisness thinking nothing will happen and when it does they are not prepared. That is how criminals are able to have a advantage. If everyone was not so blind they may be able to prevent the attack altogether, or they can be prepared for one.
Originally posted by SeitseI have told you about the site already, you do not listen to a word anyone tells you. You have a blinded opinion where your opinion is truth and no matter what anyone says you are right and everyone else is wrong, I will not debate with you any further so don't bother responding to any more of my post.
I don't care about you or your husband.
I rather stay away from people that are habituals of white supremacist websites.
People that, as soon as they see some spoof website difamating an honorable black civil rights fighter, embraces it as if it was the truth.
Stay away from me. I despise your kind.
Have a good day.
Originally posted by BartsWell, if you have seen me and not known anything ablout me, you would not believe I am able to protect myself. I am 5'1'' with the look of a young teen(which I hate), soft voice, kinda like a kid, and weigh 125lb. I am the prime victom that most criminals seek for. So criminals could not know who is carrying and who is not, unless they are carring openly which I do not for that reason.
And that might work for you, because, as you say many aren't as prepared as you are. Because of that, a criminal isn't expecting to fight someone like you. Problem is, if everyone were like you, a criminal will be expecting it and will be prepared for it as well. It's a sort of evolution, if the enviroment changes (more people are prepared like you), then criminals will adapt to that and finds ways to overcome those people.
Originally posted by pritybettaKnowing the position you hold on the effects of guns in the hands of civilians, I think this fact speaks for you character. I however think it's ill advised. If a lot of people would act that way, then criminals will be more at risk (that in itself certainly isn't bad) and thus will behave more violently. And seeing as they don't know who does and does not carry, those without guns will suffer from it as well.
Well, if you have seen me and not known anything ablout me, you would not believe I am able to protect myself. I am 5'1'' with the look of a young teen(which I hate), soft voice, kinda like a kid, and weigh 125lb. I am the prime victom that most criminals seek for. So criminals could not know who is carrying and who is not, unless they are carring openly which I do not for that reason.
Originally posted by pritybettaSieg heil
I have told you about the site already, you do not listen to a word anyone tells you. You have a blinded opinion where your opinion is truth and no matter what anyone says you are right and everyone else is wrong, I will not debate with you any further so don't bother responding to any more of my post.
Have a good day.