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.

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 this is a mischaracterization. I alluded to what I think the foundational issue is much earlier in the thread when I spoke about the "Freedom Argument". I think the issue is responsibility to others. In other words, I think if a responsible person sees that a particular action can reduce harm for others then they should consider that action as an ethical choice. As individuals who live in a democratic society you have an opportunity to choose to reduce the violence in your society- to do so by opting out of the freedom to own some weapons. I believe you should vote laws into action that reduce your freedoms, yes. But a freedom given up freely is not a loss of freedom. As parents we give up freedoms to take responsible care of our children. This is not tyranny. It is Ethics. Sometimes, even though we ourselves are responsible and would never behave in particular fashion even though it is not against the law, we need to enact laws that prevent the less responsible from behaving foolishly, or dangerously. Sometimes we should do this even if it reduces our personal freedom. Freedom divorced from responsibility is anti-social. Freedom completely divorced from responsibility is sociopathic.

Once again, Gun control does not have to mean prohibition, It just means greater controls. What if instead of being able to order 6000 rounds of ammunition anonymously to his apartment , James Holmes had to purchase them from the local Police Department and answer some questions first. If you are a responsible gun owner why would this be an imposition?

I can appreciate Sneaker's POV (wtf did I just say?) on the slippery slope thing, but I don't think we should let those fears prevent us from taking reasonable measures. I, for one, wish there were more regulations for parenting.

Why not fix the problem instead of treating the symptoms?

We didn't start the fire. This crap is only going to get worse for a number of reasons old and new.

I would've said easy access to guns.


Saying that someone else in the crowd having a gun would've stopped anything is nonsense I already addressed.

Ok what if he was going into the theater to massacre people by punching them in the head, or stabbing them, or hitting them with a baseball bat. He wouldn't get too many because people would be fighting back. Since he had a gun and nobody else did your only option was to run away in fear for your life while being shot at.

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.

Not only this, but there's really no such thing as total abolition of crime. As long as there are people there will be greed, envy, and anger. This ARE the ultimate motivators of crime.

There are people with millions of dollars, yet they still embezzle company funds. Why is that?

Steppin, I still hold to my belief that despite the fact there aren't militias, there's always a threat of government tyranny.

While I agree the government DOES have much superior firepower, this doesn't inherently mean anything. How long were we bogged down in Iraq fighting basically a small militia?

The US population is give or take 315m (according to census data), whereas our combined armed forces numbers are around 1.5m. We can even say not all of the population is willing/able to fight (in our hypothetical revolution) lets instead say there's less then half, so 150m. That's still outnumbering our military 100:1, and we also have to consider that not all people in the military would be willing to use such extreme weaponry on the US populace.

Welcome to the politburo, comrade.

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.

I think Techmo gave the correct term for it -- "Slippery Slope".
1. I do not think cars are the same as this issue. Yes debatable (but no time right now).
2. Pretty much you can apply this reasoning to a lot of my arguments. The other side is so rabid to control people, that I'm like "No way. I'm not giving you an inch." They are never happy.
So 95% is like I just need a little push, but probably still not going to convince me...but it is an interesting thought.

"I used to do a little, but a little was too little....so a little got more and MORE." -- GnR (you know those responsible dudes. lol)


Gotta run.

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

Poverty-line: Where did you get that idea from ?
Crime Rate: Again, you are comparing armed robbery with bicycle theft.

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.

I admit it is not the perfect measure. The issue with the crime rate you used is that it pools armed robbery with bicycle theft - which clearly is absurd. Another problem is that the laws (definitions of the crimes) are not equivalent. The result is that you cannot compare the number of violent crimes either.

What you can compare is how large a percentage is in prison. That tells you something about how large a part of the population behaves in such a way that the society puts them in jail. And the fact is that the US by there own definition has a lot more criminals / 100.000 than most other countries.

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.

Why would people who give a larger portion of their income to the government require less accountability?

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).

I'm not surprised because the numbers don't reflect what you think they reflect.

Once again, Gun control does not have to mean prohibition, It just means greater controls. What if instead of being able to order 6000 rounds of ammunition anonymously to his apartment , James Holmes had to purchase them from the local Police Department and answer some questions first. If you are a responsible gun owner why would this be an imposition?

Shockingly, I'm with Sneakers on the slippery slope argument vs. this example. If the police station is the only place you can get bullets, how long before the authorities decide to close the shop?

micsquab wrote:
Ok what if he was going into the theater to massacre people by punching them in the head, or stabbing them, or hitting them with a baseball bat. He wouldn't get too many because people would be fighting back. Since he had a gun and nobody else did your only option was to run away in fear for your life while being shot at.

Him not having a gun would have made a difference. Someone else in the crowd may not have. See my posts above about the guy who shot at the white house, etc..

medic wrote:
Steppin, I still hold to my belief that despite the fact there aren't militias, there's always a threat of government tyranny.

There is always the threat. There's nothing we can do about it anymore.

While I agree the government DOES have much superior firepower, this doesn't inherently mean anything. How long were we bogged down in Iraq fighting basically a small militia?

Different situation, but even in Iraq it's not like the insurgents control anything or are winning anything. Nothing they do has affected the presence of American soldiers or destroyed operational capacity.

Sneakers wrote:
I think Techmo gave the correct term for it -- "Slippery Slope".
1. I do not think cars are the same as this issue. Yes debatable (but no time right now).

Cars are dangerous, yet we basically let any idiot drive them, the result of which is 115 fatal car accidents per day.
How does it not make sense that if we have a society in which the carrying and owning of machines specifically designed to kill people, we make sure they know how to use it properly?

Another funny video break.

65 year-old lady gets her gun and chases 5 armed thugs out of her store. They look like the Three-Stooges trying to run away and colliding into each other.
Owner and customers unharmed. Funny.

Granny with gun scares off armed thugs

Poverty-line: Where did you get that idea from ?
Crime Rate: Again, you are comparing armed robbery with bicycle theft.

Improva, I am just demonstrating that your home country, the model you have used to lambast the US economy/laws, is not all peaches-and-cream. Your country has plenty of issues too, regardless of the welfare benefits or laws.

You speak as though Denmark is better, and say that it is "scalable" to the US?
You even said this talking about the US...
".....1/6th of the US population lives below the poverty threshold. Maybe that is why the crime rate in the US is insane? "

But what I have shown you, is that Denmark has its share of issues.........

High Poverty not drastically lower....13.4% vs 15.1% US
"Crime Rate" (your words) higher..... Denmark 23% victims vs US 21.1% victims
Rape Victims 0.4% tied
Suicide Rates higher..... Denmark 16.9/100k vs US 15.3/100k
Assault Victims slightly higher..... Denmark 1.4% .... US 1.2% .... Canada 2.3% .... Australia 2.4%

And then there is this very telling Crime and Safety report for Denmark (repeating here). In this report, I see a lot of tell-tale signs and possible correlations regarding the causes of crime.

I am not saying that I would not mind visiting or living in Denmark. (I bet the women are nice looking) But what I am saying, that if you want to use Denmark as a model of perfection.......then the facts do matter. Let's be honest. Denmark has it share of problems. Economy-wise, Denmark siphons off of other country economies (not bad, but true). Honestly, it surprised me a little to see the stats. Interesting country.


.