Off Topic Poker Forums

TLDR

Come to Canada
Also Improva is right .

not unless violent crime rates drop to zero. I should still be able to choose to prepare for the eventuality if it exists.

Today I would expect:

[likelyhood of crime] * [likelyhood of you being able to actually defend yourself] ≈ 0

With less crime there would be even less reason to own a gun for protection.

TLDR

Come to Canada
Also Improva is right .

lol You should have read the crime victim stats.
Canada 23.8% crime victims ..... 7th of 20 (worse than both the US and Denmark)

Somehow, I get the feeling that people watch too many movies and TV, to believe the US is the most dangerous place on the planet. But I do have to admit that the real numbers surprise me too.

not unless violent crime rates drop to zero. I should still be able to choose to prepare for the eventuality if it exists.

It seems to me that your issue should be with the freedom to own, not the possibility of danger. So crime rates should be irrelevant for your side, but I may be putting words into your mouth here.

lol You should have read the crime victim stats.
Canada 23.8% crime victims ..... 7th of 20 (worse than both the US and Denmark)

Somehow, I get the feeling that people watch too many movies and TV, to believe the US is the most dangerous place on the planet. But I do have to admit that the real numbers surprise me too.

crime ≠ crime

If you look at the nature of the crimes committed you should see a very different story. The number of people in prison per 100.000 is a much better measure.

Today I would expect:

[likelyhood of crime] * [likelyhood of you being able to actually defend yourself] ≈ 0

Since I don't own a gun today, you would be right. Plus, as I mentioned the kind of training course that I think should be required doesn't even exist voluntarily.

With less crime there would be even less reason to own a gun for protection.

Less violent crime is not no violent crime, and less reason is not no reason. Though I will concede it would lessen my feeling of need for a gun.

Tecmo wrote:
It seems to me that your issue should be with the freedom to own, not the possibility of danger. So crime rates should be irrelevant for your side, but I may be putting words into your mouth here.

My contention is that since we no longer need militias and can no longer match government's firepower, the only purpose to owning anything but hunting rifles is to defend myself or others. The need for which exists as long as violent crimes are a possibility.
ETA: Although I do also believe there is room for the enthusiast, for the same reason I don't think Ferraris or Porsches should be banned because being capable of going 100+mph is unnecessary for them to function.

My contention is that since we no longer need militias and can no longer match government's firepower, the only purpose to owning anything but hunting rifles is to defend myself or others. The need for which exists as long as violent crimes are a possibility.
ETA: Although I do also believe there is room for the enthusiast, for the same reason I don't think Ferraris or Porsches should be banned because being capable of going 100+mph is unnecessary for them to function.

ETA = estimated time of arrival for me. I'm assuming there's another meaning lol.

The parlay is this: violent crime happens + you have your gun + you are prepared to use it + you use it effectively = violent crime negated/lessened. At what point does the likelihood of said parlay happening make it ridiculous to plan for?

Keep in mind that I have a gun next to my bed so I'm strictly trying to look at this academically.

crime ≠ crime

I am just following your arguments.
"Poverty-Line" Denmark just as bad as US.
"Crime Rate" Denmark worse than US.

If you look at the nature of the crimes committed you should see a very different story. The number of people in prison per 100.000 is a much better measure.

I disagree (sorry).
If you want to use people in prison, you have opened up a whole other "can of worms". People in prison for drugs (another huge debate). Etc.

Since we are brainstorming (I think)....There is another stat I have always found interesting.
Tolerance for Corruption
It is interesting that "group-oriented" societies have more "tolerance for corruption". But there are all kinds of negative trade-offs as well, for this tolerance.
Individualistic countries tend to have a "lower tolerance for corruption". (responsibility and accountability)

All kinds of different correlations come from this.....and it is always interesting to see which countries are at the extremes.

I think the point (for me), is that countries with a higher tolerance for corruption, are less likely to fight for their rights (in court or by themselves).
In countries where "responsibility" and "accountability" have higher values, the citizens will tend to correct injustices more swiftly. Just my view. Not fact.

NOTE: I am not saying this is the correct stat. Just that it is interesting.
With that said, so far, the numbers for many of your claims are not proving true. (i.e. "poverty", "crime rate") And you are adjusting, rather than being surprised at all. I admit I am surprised a little at both of the US and Denmark stats (seriously).

....Keep in mind that I have a gun next to my bed so I'm strictly trying to look at this academically.

Wow! This thread is surprising the heck out of me. Maybe there is a God.

Tecmo has a gun next to his bed. I never would have guessed it.
I also believe "freedom" is the issue. But the "self-defense" argument is necessary as the argument deepens. The other side believe that guns are the issue (and they never care about "freedom").

I think I agree with 95% of what Razor has said (although it hurts my fingers a lot to type that).

The part I question (not completely disagree) is the "mandatory" training. I fear that this possibly treads on "freedom" too much. It is a way to "control" and take away guns when the time comes.
........Although I really want to agree with this "mandatory" training.....what I always tend to fight is legislation that "creeps " (slowly getting more and more strict...same as taxes etc).
"Give them an inch, and they will almost always take a mile. Never satisfied."
.......Same deal with the proposed UN Bill that would have basically forced every US citizen to register with the UN indirectly (which is none of their business). Thankfully it failed.

The stat that I posted about only 8% of violent crimes involving guns in the U.S. implies to me that gun control is not the issue. As has been said, I feel there are numerous other factors involved. I also strongly agree with the natural right to defend one's self even though I have never owned nor shot a gun in my lifetime. The low likelihood of something happening shouldn't be the main factor when considering the outcome could result in an innocent person's death.

Tecmo has a gun next to his bed. I never would have guessed it.

I also have cookies by my bed. The gun is to protect said cookies.

Seriously though, I have been trained to use it by some of the best instructors in the nation so I feel equipped to use it properly. With that being said, I don't actually expect to use it and it's really just a peace of mind thing.

Let's kick it up a notch. Guns suck. Let's talk about flamethrowers, RPGs, gatlings and cruise missiles. Do you really want to rely on the air force to keep you safe? It's better to get some surface-to-air missiles. What if Bill Gates felt he needed an aircraft carrier to defend his family and his interests. Who's to say he shouldn't be allowed to have one?

Steve Ritchie, in my opinion, is the Steve Wozniak of Pinball machines.
Tons of inventions (firsts) in the pinball arena (multiball, upkicker, etc). He signed one of my pinball machines (Star Trek Next Generation). Super cool and nice guy.
Right now, he is designing an AC/DC pinball game. It is going to be badass, with sound system and shaker.

Anyways, he made this 1981 pinball shooter game, HYPERBALL. His thinking behind the creation was something like this......
...........He went into the military, and went to bootcamp. He said he realized that it was REALLY FUN to shoot an M16. So he invented this game behind that idea, that all boys like to have fun. Same thing for paintball, gotcha, etc. It is fun. (Some don't have fun though. lol)

==============
Another story:
Here in Mexico, I know quite a few Cubans that have escaped the island (tryanny). This one guy was some kind of soviet-trained special forces (spy). He now trains the Mexican military.
......... Supposedly, for some time, I have had an open invitation to go shooting with him (military handguns).
<BREAK> Making phone call now. lol I like fun. Now that I am thinking about it, I should get my wife to shoot also. She is such a girly-girl with such things. Hope she doesn't shoot me. lol

.

Just wait for technology for effective non lethal stun weapons.

ETA = estimated time of arrival for me. I'm assuming there's another meaning lol.

The parlay is this: violent crime happens + you have your gun + you are prepared to use it + you use it effectively = violent crime negated/lessened. At what point does the likelihood of said parlay happening make it ridiculous to plan for?

Keep in mind that I have a gun next to my bed so I'm strictly trying to look at this academically.

ETA in that case meant edited to add.
If the rules included what I wanted, then 2, 3, and 4 would be one thing. I don't think I would bother to get a gun if I couldn't carry it.

Sneakers wrote:
I think I agree with 95% of what Razor has said (although it hurts my fingers a lot to type that).

Welcome to the politburo, comrade.

The part I question (not completely disagree) is the "mandatory" training.

We have mandatory training (though it is terrible) for driving a car. Am I wrong to assume you aren't afraid of legislative creep taking our cars away? It seems only sensible that if you are going to allow people to possess a weapon specifically designed for hurting other people, that they know its proper use.