A good reason to own guns in the home

[k thx 0]

I'm just trying to show what the difference is in the 2 cultures

Chave has been posting in this thread; it wasn't really a revelation.

"Maybe I should be mocking you for not having the freedom to own 12 (or more) guns"

 

Just pointing out the fact that not everyone WANTS that freedom

Hell yeah.

 

I'd rather live in a country where I don't need a gun to protect myself than one where I do.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'd rather live in a country with the freedom to do as I please.

 

Chave,

 

You act like we think we need a gun to protect myself. We'd don't need guns to protect ourselves in America. Regardless of news, we have very low crime rates...duh. We need the ability to get them should that situation ever arise.

 

If you ever care about your well-being, you never begin to constraint yourself. Not legally, not anything...Never.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

And dammit Chave, the equations I posted were on the fly back of the envelope. You're right, it is not that simple, they're alot of variables.

 

But the end result is the same as I predicted...regardless!

 

ITS PROVEN ECONOMIC THEORY IN PUBLISHED JOURNALS...!

[k thx 0]

And dammit Chave, the equations I posted were on the fly back of the envelope. You're right, it is not that simple, they're alot of variables.

 

But the end result is the same as I predicted...regardless!

 

ITS PROVEN ECONOMIC THEORY IN PUBLISHED JOURNALS...!

THOSE JOURNALS MEAN NOTHING~!

 

Well, they do, but that's not the point. They still haven't changed my point of view.

[Guest MikeSC]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Does that really apply in this day and age now? It's not like the Redcoats are going to come and drag you from your home.

Hey, the internet and 24-hour cable news channels weren't considered when the Constitution was written.

 

I suppose we should adjust the 1st Amendment now, huh?

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Given the following 2 equations:

Demand for Murders =a-b(Co)

Supply of Murders.-c+d(Be)

I realise what you're saying there, but (guess what I'm gonna say) it's not that simple. The benefits of killing someone would not increase by that much simply because people can't defend themselves with a gun. If someone is gonna murder someone, then they'll murder them. If someone wants to kil someone, they wont stop because they think that person has a gun.

 

Therefore why bother with making guns illegal..Go ahead and make the A prime C prime argument. It's logical suicide to do so. And if you don't know what that is...Dierdre McCloskey...go read her

 

The possesion of guns is not the main variable in this equation. There are other ways to kill someone. There are other ways to defend yourself.

 

<--More A Prime C Prime. Dammit I had to keep it simple

 

Yes, there may be an increase in the amount of gun crimes, certainly over the short term, but it wont be a major change like you seem to be predicting. It certainly wont be enough to throw American society out of balance.

 

<--Short Term? You changed a variable my friend. That change sends shocks out for a long long time. There are multiple rounds to the game that will be played out,and YES IT WILL. Don't question my knowledge in Economics. Where's your two degrees in it?

 

In addition, if the production of guns and ammunition is cut down, then after a short amount of time the disparity between criminals and innoccents with guns will decrease, leading to a net decrease in gun crimes and an overall benefit to American society.

 

<--Wrong. Who consumes the most guns and ammo. The government. Production will likely remain relatively unaffected by a civilian ban. Therefore Q will not drastically decrease. You're FLAT WRONG. Don't...even...talk...economics...unless...you actually know the theory. It's obvious from your statements you don't. You failed to take into account who buys guns. You failed to account for substitution effects...which you pointed out in disagreeing with my results because I didn't have enough substitution variables in my SIMPLE EQUATION to begin with.

 

want a complicated equation? I can provide it...easy...

 

WITH THE SAME RESULT.

 

Given the following 2 equations:

Demand for Murders =a-b(Co)

Supply of Murders.-c+d(Be)

I realise what you're saying there, but (guess what I'm gonna say) it's not that simple. The benefits of killing someone would not increase by that much simply because people can't defend themselves with a gun. If someone is gonna murder someone, then they'll murder them. If someone wants to kil someone, they wont stop because they think that person has a gun.

 

Therefore why bother with making guns illegal..Go ahead and make the A prime C prime argument. It's logical suicide to do so. And if you don't know what that is...Dierdre McCloskey...go read her

 

The possesion of guns is not the main variable in this equation. There are other ways to kill someone. There are other ways to defend yourself.

 

<--More A Prime C Prime. Dammit I had to keep it simple

 

Yes, there may be an increase in the amount of gun crimes, certainly over the short term, but it wont be a major change like you seem to be predicting. It certainly wont be enough to throw American society out of balance.

 

<--Short Term? You changed a variable my friend. That change sends shocks out for a long long time. There are multiple rounds to the game that will be played out,and YES IT WILL. Don't question my knowledge in Economics. Where's your two degrees in it?

 

In addition, if the production of guns and ammunition is cut down, then after a short amount of time the disparity between criminals and innoccents with guns will decrease, leading to a net decrease in gun crimes and an overall benefit to American society.

 

<--Wrong. Who consumes the most guns and ammo. The government. Production will likely remain relatively unaffected by a civilian ban. Therefore Q will not drastically decrease. You're FLAT WRONG. Don't...even...talk...economics...unless...you actually know the theory. It's obvious from your statements you don't. You failed to take into account who buys guns. You failed to account for substitution effects...which you pointed out in disagreeing with my results because I didn't have enough substitution variables in my SIMPLE EQUATION to begin with.

 

want a complicated equation? I can provide it...easy...

 

WITH THE SAME RESULT.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

And dammit Chave, the equations I posted were on the fly back of the envelope.  You're right, it is not that simple, they're alot of variables.

 

But the end result is the same as I predicted...regardless!

 

ITS PROVEN ECONOMIC THEORY IN PUBLISHED JOURNALS...!

THOSE JOURNALS MEAN NOTHING~!

 

Well, they do, but that's not the point. They still haven't changed my point of view.

They mean nothing?

 

Nothing? You mean well-respected scientific thought published in journals means nothing.

 

Fuck man, that's ignorant

[Guest MikeSC]

This is making my head hurt. 

 

FACT: bad, evil, violent people will always have some sort of access to guns, whether through theft, a black market, or whatever. 

 

COROLLARY: good people need to have their own guns to protect themselves from the bad ones. 

 

Could it be any simpler?

It's a bit too simple for Europeans, it seems. They can't quite make themselves accept that evil per se actually exists.

Oh, I know evil exists, the Devil & the Boogeyman and all that...yep.

 

For my sins, I just happen to live somewhere where I don't feel the need to own 12 fucking guns fer christ's sake!! Who should really be mocking who here exactly? I guess most of us simple European folk don't come into contact with guns in our lifetime, sure we miss out on a few of the simple everyday pleasures in life like taking our kids to shooting ranges but we get by nonetheless.

You also have fewer problems with sacrificing sovereign rights to an unelectable super-government (the EU).

 

I haven't seen too many megalomaniacal dictators hailing from the U.S. I HAVE noticed a few from Europe. Perhaps the lack of guns amidst the populace has caused the problem (yet, somehow, it seems that the IRA remains fairly well armed). People with no ability to defend themselves will seldom TRY to defend themselves.

 

If we're doing things so backwards, why have we managed to avoid having Hitler and Mussolini types rising to power here?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh I know. That they'd deny it to their law-abiding countrymen is the sad part.

Indeed. I personally do not own guns --- but I am COMPLETELY behind anybody who wishes to possess them.

Hell yeah.

 

I'd rather live in a country where I don't need a gun to protect myself than one where I do.

Personally, I'd rather live in a country where I have the liberty to own such things.

-=Mike

[k thx 0]

And dammit Chave, the equations I posted were on the fly back of the envelope.  You're right, it is not that simple, they're alot of variables.

 

But the end result is the same as I predicted...regardless!

 

ITS PROVEN ECONOMIC THEORY IN PUBLISHED JOURNALS...!

THOSE JOURNALS MEAN NOTHING~!

 

Well, they do, but that's not the point. They still haven't changed my point of view.

They mean nothing?

 

Nothing? You mean well-respected scientific thought published in journals means nothing.

 

Fuck man, that's ignorant

That was a joke man. Sorry.

 

And as for your previous post (because no way in hell am I gonna quote THAT), I'll admit you know more than me about statistics et al, but I still maintain that the effect will diminish quickly over time. ANd as for the government get guns so anyone else can? That's a poor arguement. The government have some of the best guns in the world made for them, and they still don't end up on the streets. The black market would, if guns were outlawed, be made up of previously legal guns, not government issue.

[Skywarp! 0]

Glad to hear it. I'm sure your kids are glad to hear it, too, when they're raped or murdered.

Statements like this are part of the problem, though. They perpetuate a fear culture.

[Guest MikeSC]

Glad to hear it. I'm sure your kids are glad to hear it, too, when they're raped or murdered.

Statements like this are part of the problem, though. They perpetuate a fear culture.

Defensive planning is a "fear culture"?

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'll admit you know more than me about statistics et al, but I still maintain that the effect will diminish quickly over time.

You admit you know nothing on statistics...

 

Then do not tell me that you can say what they will do. I can tell you what they will do because I've studied them for 7 years straight. Economic laws do not change...and economics denies the claims you are making.

 

If you wish to make a claim on your viewpoint, you need to use something other than the arguments you're currently using, because they can be logically faulted and destroyed.

 

May I suggest a faith-based argument?

 

Your other suggestion, that illegal gun markets will be made up of legal guns...that's also wrong. Most illegal guns were bought on the black market. Period. That's a characteristic of an illegal gun. Now by illegalizing legal guns, yes, there will be alot of illegal guns, but I can name 10 effects right now that economically speaking would prevent the trade of those guns.

 

Pick...another...argument...Yours current is more holey than Jesus.

[k thx 0]

SJ:

 

I really have no idea what the hell that last post was about. Anyway, my point of view is that you cannot predict the trend of a change in law through an economic equation. That's somethong we're not gonna agree on, no matter how much we argue. However, I believe that the reasons I've given for my claim are strong enough to show that there will not be a major change, and that that change will diminish over time. Reliance on an economic equation requires as much faith as my arguement based on what I believe to be logic.

 

Secondly, my arguement was that if guns are outlawed then the black market will be made up of previosly legal guns, not military arms like you suggested.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'm trying to tell you that unless you want to fly in the face of pretty much every economist that exists (and incidentally most economists are very liberal) then you're denying the truth...

 

and i answered your suggestion on legal guns...i agree it would not be made of military arms...but it would be made of produced guns...

 

not military, not previously legal...produced.

 

Production = M + PL + Other

 

I'm gone for the day, but I wish you'd actually read up on some economics because it might help you make better arguments if you knew the basics...

 

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations or David Ricardo's Treatise on Comparative Advantage are old, but easy and by far still accurate reads...I hope you try, because if you continue to argue the way you have, you'll find that you'l win fewer arguments as what you state flys in the face of very well-reputed facts.

[snuffbox 0]

Just out of curiosity(since I am a sissy who doesnt own a single gun yet still does support the 2nd amendmant but that is consistently forgotten)...If you own 10 guns, or whatever number the case may be, and they are all locked up safely; and one evening while youre with your family in your living room a man with a loaded weapon intrudes(by any means)...what will you do?

[Styles 0]

If we're doing things so backwards, why have we managed to avoid having Hitler and Mussolini types rising to power here?

-=Mike

OMG WHATABOUT BUSH LOL~!! MOVEON.ORG PATRIOT ACT=HITLER!!! LOL2k4!!!!

[Stephen Joseph 0]

While this might have been heated, we were actually having a real conversation about the issue...your post is completely unnecessary

[Firestarter 0]

If you own 10 guns, or whatever number the case may be, and they are all locked up safely; and one evening while youre with your family in your living room a man with a loaded weapon intrudes(by any means)...what will you do?

Take out the 12th gun I'm legally entitled to carry concealed from my underarm holster and shoot him between the eyes.

[Anorak 0]

I just happen to live somewhere where I don't feel the need to own 12 fucking guns fer christ's sake!! Who should really be mocking who here exactly?

Maybe I should be mocking you for not having the freedom to own 12 (or more) guns, for not having the ability to make that choice for yourself, but that would be unkind. I just feel a little pity.

 

I guess most of us simple European folk... miss out on a few of the simple everyday pleasures in life like taking our kids to shooting ranges but we get by nonetheless

Glad to hear it. I'm sure your kids are glad to hear it, too, when they're raped or murdered.

Feel sorry for us we have the same gun culture as America has one day. I wouldn't begrudge anybody in the UK the legal right to own firearms if they so wished so i'm not disagreeing on that point, I just hope there doesn't come a time over here where people feel they have to take that descision to feel safe in their own homes. It would be interesting to know how many would take up the option if the government made it possible but our culture simply doesn't live with the same paranoid fear of violence or historic affinity for firearms that exists in America. Your attitude to the issue seems as strange and alien to us as ours must be to you I suppose.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

How many dictators have come out of the US?

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

How many dictators have come out of the US?

But can you tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the reason there have been no dictators from the US is that we have the right to bear arms? I would say it has much more to do with the strong will of the American citizens.

 

I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but I would much rather live in a country where I have no need to own a gun.

[Jingus 0]

Yeah, I'd much rather live in a world where I would never need a gun. Or one where guns never existed at all. (Although I say that because I'm a fully grown man with martial arts training and thus little to fear from an unarmed criminal; a 98-pound grandmother might disagree with me.)

 

Thing is, though, in America, GUNS WILL ALWAYS BE HERE. We live in the fourth-largest country in the world, with massive unguarded borders connecting to two other large countries. Millions of guns are already here, and more smuggling occurs in America than in any other country on the globe. Sure, the government could crack down in Stalinesque ways on all types of firearms, but such a massive effort would severely crimp many of our freedoms aside from the 2nd Amendment. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns in this country. That fact renders this entire discussiong pointless.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

How many dictators have come out of the US?

But can you tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the reason there have been no dictators from the US is that we have the right to bear arms? I would say it has much more to do with the strong will of the American citizens.

Strong will means absolutely dick without the ability to physically back it up. If I wanted to take this country over, the first thing I would do is take away the average citizen's ability to defend himself.

 

I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but I would much rather live in a country where I have no need to own a gun.

So would I, but I'm not naive. When that world actually existed, I would give up my gun. But I wouldn't give up my gun in a foolish attempt to create that world.

 

Sure, the government could crack down in Stalinesque ways on all types of firearms, but such a massive effort would severely crimp many of our freedoms aside from the 2nd Amendment. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns in this country.

Which is precisely why law-abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms.

[Guest MikeSC]

How many dictators have come out of the US?

But can you tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the reason there have been no dictators from the US is that we have the right to bear arms? I would say it has much more to do with the strong will of the American citizens.

 

I'm not against the 2nd amendment, but I would much rather live in a country where I have no need to own a gun.

Armed people seldom are dominated by dictators. Unarmed people, though, have that problem.

 

I prefer living in a country where I can do a lot of things that you might find unnecessary.

-=Mike

[treble 0]

I definitely think you should have the right to bear arms, but I've always questioned the need to have 10 guns (or more or whatever) in your house. Yeah, I know the Constitution says you can have them (and I hate it when people use that as their sole reason for keeping guns in their house), but does having a small army's worth of assault rifles in your home make you feel any safer than you would with a simple handgun?

[Jingus 0]

I wouldn't buy so many, just because they're expensive and one or two good ones would do me just fine. But if someone wants to own 278 shotguns, well, fine by me. People collect stamps, baseball cards, Cabbage Patch dolls, and many other things with much less use than guns.

[Guest MikeSC]

I definitely think you should have the right to bear arms, but I've always questioned the need to have 10 guns (or more or whatever) in your house. Yeah, I know the Constitution says you can have them (and I hate it when people use that as their sole reason for keeping guns in their house), but does having a small army's worth of assault rifles in your home make you feel any safer than you would with a simple handgun?

Simple question:

 

You seem to have a problem having too many guns.

 

Would you have a similar problem with somebody using his/her freedom of speech too much?

 

The reason I have zero problem with people owning lots of guns is because it is legal and allowed. I'd rather they have too many than not be allowed to have any.

-=Mike

[treble 0]

No, I don't have a problem with people using their freedom of speech too much, but, I believe you should use constraint there. I mean, just because I have the right to go up to everyone I see and say whatever I want to them, but that doesn't mean that I would do that. It's common sense.

 

So, even if you have the right to own 400 guns, I really don't see the need for it.

[Guest BDC]

You may not see a need for it, but since when does someone else not seeing a need for it mean JACK? If you don't see a need for me to spend an hour of every evening learning how to break arms, then should I quit?