Man shoots own son dead in attempted 'burglary'...

[The Don]

Where did I claim either of those?

As usual however, as politicians do whenever they like to shut down debate, they simply claim the people cannot be trusted and that they know better - as with so many other subjects (the EU for one in regards to referendum results).

Personally I trust British subjects because they know best how to defend themselves and keep their families safe than I or any government does.

Like you did with our debate in the Habbo section which you swiftly stopped replying to after I pointed out you had no evidence and decided to blame the governments corruption to make my evidence seem worthless...

---------- Post added 29-09-2012 at 02:00 PM ----------

Indeed, but I never have made the claim (as you make out) that crime would cease if guns were legalised for law abiding people.

Either way, we could argue about the effect on crime until the cows come home - the fact is, that in a free society there will be risks in regards to safety but that the individual or family ought to be allowed to arm themselves to protect their families and property.

And in a free society, if you don't like it - then you can simply opt to not have a gun. It really is as simple as that.

How are you going to prevent criminals from gaining access to guns?

NIRVANA FALLACY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

---------- Post added 29-09-2012 at 02:01 PM ----------

Indeed, but I never have made the claim (as you make out) that crime would cease if guns were legalised for law abiding people.

Either way, we could argue about the effect on crime until the cows come home - the fact is, that in a free society there will be risks in regards to safety but that the individual or family ought to be allowed to arm themselves to protect their families and property.

And in a free society, if you don't like it - then you can simply opt to not have a gun. It really is as simple as that.

It really isn't as simple as that because you opting to not have a gun doesn't stop others from having them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Like you did with our debate in the Habbo section which you swiftly stopped replying to after I pointed out you had no evidence and decided to blame the governments corruption to make my evidence seem worthless...

I have just moved to University and spent a week here getting to know the place just after seeing friends and family before I go, hence the bright highlighted red signature. Believe it or not, Habbox Forum isn't my life although I have always (when I have the time) attempted to respond.

If you do wish to discuss it and you're burning to discuss it to such an extent (and i'm sure in the past you've been one of those who have accused me of 'going on and on') then by all means create a thread in Debates and i'll reply whenever I have the time.

How are you going to prevent criminals from gaining access to guns?

And they are stopped now?

Criminals already have access to guns along with many other weapons, the only thing gun laws do is remove the same right from law abiding people. I mean, do you really think criminals (the clue is in the name) are going to follow a ban on gun ownership? of course not, hence why in this country the criminals are armed and the law abiding victims are not.

But can I ask, with the example I posted before, do you think that property owner was right to shoot the thieves?

It really isn't as simple as that because you opting to not have a gun doesn't stop others from having them.

Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form? provided they do not hurt you, then it is none of your concern - that is, if you believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property.

[The Don]

I have just moved to University and spent a week here getting to know the place just after seeing friends and family before I go, hence the bright highlighted red signature. Believe it or not, Habbox Forum isn't my life.

If you do wish to discuss it and you're burning to discuss it to such an extent (and i'm sure in the past you've been one of those who have accused me of 'going on and on') then by all means create a thread in Debates and i'll reply whenever I have the time.



And they are stopped now?



Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form?

Libertarianism: the radical notion that other people are not your property.

No, but it's a hell of a lot harder for them to gain access to them. Why don't we arm every petty thug with a balaclava and sawn-off shotguns, I mean how does what they have in their private possession have anything to do with you or could potentially effect you in any way even if said person with a gun happens to be a law abiding citizen (For the answer to "Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form?" take a look at the original post and you'll see that arming the general public can have huge repercussions and which is why it should be restricted)

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, but it's a hell of a lot harder for them to gain access to them. Why don't we arm every petty thug with a balaclava and sawn-off shotguns,

What, like drugs are hard to get? none of these things are get to get hold of provided you really want them, and with the links criminals have it really is much much easier than you dare to think.

I mean how does what they have in their private possession have anything to do with you or could potentially effect you in any way even if said person with a gun happens to be a law abiding citizen (For the answer to "Why is what others have in their private property the concern of you in any way shape or form?" take a look at the original post and you'll see that arming the general public can have huge repercussions and which is why it should be restricted)

If it has huge repercussions as you state, then in any free society those repurcussions and risks would be taken into account whenever a householder buys a weapon. You may judge that the risk of the thief turning the gun on you when you confront them is too great, hence you'll choose not to buy one - I on the other hand might decide that hey, I actually feel safer being armed against intruders and that I have a right to defend myself and my property. Thats the beauty of it you see, individual rights - I don't tell you what to do and vice versa.

Just as with the example I provided, the property owners successfully repelled an attack on their property - thanks to gun ownership.

[The Don]

What, like drugs are hard to get? none of these things are get to get hold of provided you really want them, and with the links criminals have it really is much much easier than you dare to think.

Are you serious? I don't have you down as being very streetwise so i'll forgive you, but it's far more difficult to obtain a gun, much more so than drugs especially. If you were to legalise guns then they will become widely distributed which means (and even a toddler can work this out) more will end up in the hands of criminals who otherwise wouldn't be armed.

If it has huge repercussions as you state, then in any free society those repurcussions and risks would be taken into account whenever a householder buys a weapon. You may judge that the risk of the thief turning the gun on you when you confront them is too great, hence you'll choose not to buy one - I on the other hand might decide that hey, I actually feel safer being armed against intruders and that I have a right to defend myself and my property. Thats the beauty of it you see, individual rights - I don't tell you what to do and vice versa.

That's all fine and dandy, free will and all that jazz, but as the original post shows, people being armed against 'intruders' can cause more problems than they solve.

We don't live in the American Frontier, You don't need to be armed at all times to protect yourself or your family. The police can handle a situation that comes up, if burglaries are really that much of a fear for you, get a burglar alarm.

Guns promote a culture of fear. We don't need wannabe vigilantes wandering around in the mindset that everyone is their enemy otherwise you get events such as these occurring...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for legalising guns. We seem to be coping quite well without them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you serious? I don't have you down as being very streetwise so i'll forgive you, but it's far more difficult to obtain a gun, much more so than drugs especially. If you were to legalise guns then they will become widely distributed which means (and even a toddler can work this out) more will end up in the hands of criminals who otherwise wouldn't be armed.

Where did I make the claim that both were as easily as accessible? I made the comparison of how criminals who really want guns will obtain them no matter what, but as easy as drugs? I never made that claim.

We don't live in the American Frontier, You don't need to be armed at all times to protect yourself or your family. The police can handle a situation that comes up, if burglaries are really that much of a fear for you, get a burglar alarm.

Then you show no understanding in Policing. The Police arrive 10 to 15 minutes (if you're lucky) after a crime has taken place, and within those 15 minutes you can either have had your property taken, family hurt or worse. We don't live in the American Frontier correct, but many of us live in inner city areas which are utterly plagued by crime.

Guns promote a culture of fear. We don't need wannabe vigilantes wandering around in the mindset that everyone is their enemy otherwise you get events such as these occurring...

I was under the impression this is the case in many of our inner city areas anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for legalising guns. We seem to be coping quite well without them.

Quoting random incidents at me for emotional effect has no more weight behind it than me quoting horrific stories of skiing accidents, no seatbelt accidents, violent game incidents and so on has.

I'm sure we could just as easily quote instances of where people have been murdered in their own homes (usually by strangulation in this country as petty criminals can easily overpower their often elderly victims) - circumstances where, had a gun been present, those people may be alive today and the thief dead.

[The Don]

Where did I make the claim that both were as easily as accessible? I made the comparison of how criminals who really want guns will obtain them no matter what, but as easy as drugs? I never made that claim.

You compared it to obtaining drugs, which is ridiculous and shows how deluded you actually are.

Then you show no understanding in Policing. The Police arrive 10 to 15 minutes (if you're lucky) after a crime has taken place, and within those 15 minutes you can either have had your property taken, family hurt or worse. We don't live in the American Frontier correct, but many of us live in inner city areas which are utterly plagued by crime.

Or you can suspect someone is stealing from your house and shoot them only to find out it's your child... There is not a high enough crime rate to justify legalising guns, and legalising guns is a stupid way to counter the problem, it will only cause more violence as you end up getting cases of mistaken identity (for example, this case) I also think you'll find our crime rate is far lower than other countries which have legalised guns so your point is null and void...

I was under the impression this is the case in many of our inner city areas anyway.

So let's just make it worse then, yeh? Great attitude LOL

Quoting random incidents at me for emotional effect has no more weight behind it than me quoting horrific stories of skiing accidents, no seatbelt accidents, violent game incidents and so on has.

Wow, completely missing the point. That wasn't for emotional effect, it's evidence which reinforces my point (see, how a debate works, we're nearly having one...) The article I linked showed how a random guy used a gun to prevent a 'criminal' when in fact the criminal was innocent. This completely destroys any point you make of freewill in your defence for legalising guns as the acts of other peoples freewill can intervene with other people.

I'm sure we could just as easily quote instances of where people have been murdered in their own homes (usually by strangulation in this country as petty criminals can easily overpower their often elderly victims) - circumstances where, had a gun been present, those people may be alive today and the thief dead.

And I'm sure I could quote plenty more instances of where people have shot 'armed' criminals when in fact the criminal was never a threat in the first place.

So essentially, what you're in favour of, is vigilante justice rather than improving the police?

gg dan

[-:Undertaker:-]

You compared it to obtaining drugs, which is ridiculous and shows how deluded you actually are.

In that making something illegal doesn't mean you eradicate it.

Not a deluded concept, bit difficult to grasp it seems though.

Or you can suspect someone is stealing from your house and shoot them only to find out it's your child... There is not a high enough crime rate to justify legalising guns, and legalising guns is a stupid way to counter the problem, it will only cause more violence as you end up getting cases of mistaken identity (for example, this case) I also think you'll find our crime rate is far lower than other countries which have legalised guns so your point is null and void...

The crime rate is also apparently lower in Norway and Switzerland, who have lax gun laws. So basing this entire thing on statistics, we could simply declare it null and void that way.

But rather than do that, i'm attempting to have you understand that by legalising guns you do not cause more crime, it can only act as a deterrent. Indeed, the statistics neither show strongly either way which means the laws matter very little - making it a question of whether we allow innocent people the right to defend themselves and make a free judgement.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...anted=all&_r=0

There is some evidence, Professor Volokh said, that denying guns to people who might use them in self-defense, usually merely by brandishing them, tends to increase crime rates. There is also evidence that the possibility of confronting a victim with a gun deters some criminals.

In addition, criminals are the people least likely to obey gun control laws, meaning that the laws probably have a disproportionate impact on law-abiding individuals. “For the typical gun control law,” Professor Volokh said, “you’ll have very little positive effect but a possible negative effect.”

So let's just make it worse then, yeh? Great attitude LOL

Arming innocent subjects makes it worse? the fact that people can't even walk British streets at night, to me, means it can't possibly get much worse - gun legalisation means it can only get worse for the criminals.

Wow, completely missing the point. That wasn't for emotional effect, it's evidence which reinforces my point (see, how a debate works, we're nearly having one...) The article I linked showed how a random guy used a gun to prevent a 'criminal' when in fact the criminal was innocent. This completely destroys any point you make of free will in your defence for legalising guns as the acts of other peoples free will can intervene with other people.

Oh my lord, are you being serious on the free will part? do you not understand the concept of freedom? the idea is, that you have the most freedom possible provided it does not infringe on the rights of other people in regards to property and life.

If somebody breaks this, then that is why we have courts and a criminal justice system. It appears to me that you are arguing for corpus juris (the state telling you what you can do [limited freedom]) as opposed to common law (the state telling you what you cannot do [very free]).

And I'm sure I could quote plenty more instances of where people have shot 'armed' criminals when in fact the criminal was never a threat in the first place.

Indeed, thank you for agreeing with my point that emotional cases aren't evidence - despite arguing that they are just above.

So essentially, what you're in favour of, is vigilante justice rather than improving the police?

No Police force will ever be capable of preventing all crimes, especially concerning break in crimes.

[The Don]

In that making something illegal doesn't mean you eradicate it.

Not a deluded concept, bit difficult to grasp it seems though.

Guess you missed the point about guns being pretty much eradicated and extremely hard to get a hold of?

The crime rate is also apparently lower in Norway and Switzerland, who have lax gun laws. So basing this entire thing on statistics, we could simply declare it null and void that way.

That's where your argument falls to pieces, I've literally just had a 1 minute look at gun politics in Norway. "By far the most common grounds for civilian ownership are hunting and sports shooting"
and self defence is practically never accepted as a reason for gun ownership. What exactly were you saying Dan? :rolleyes:

But rather than do that, i'm attempting to have you understand that by legalising guns you do not cause more crime, it can only act as a deterrent. Indeed, the statistics neither show strongly either way which means the laws matter very little - making it a question of whether we allow innocent people the right to defend themselves and make a free judgement.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/we...anted=all&_r=0

Again, There is no need for people to walk around enforcing the law themselves when we have the police to do that, people interfering and trying to be 'Good Samaritans' only causes more problems. And if the statistics are pretty much neutral, why change it?

Arming innocent subjects makes it worse? the fact that people can't even walk British streets at night, to me, means it can't possibly get much worse - gun legalisation means it can only get worse for the criminals.

exaggeration.

Oh my lord, are you being serious on the free will part? do you not understand the concept of freedom? the idea is, that you have the most freedom possible provided it does not infringe on the rights of other people in regards to property and life.

And shooting someone/being shot doesn't infringe the rights of other people?

If somebody breaks this, then that is why we have courts and a criminal justice system. It appears to me that you are arguing for corpus juris (the state telling you what you can do [limited freedom]) as opposed to common law (the state telling you what you cannot do [very free]).

Why allow it to happen in the first place when it can be prevented by making it almost impossible to obtain guns?

Indeed, thank you for agreeing with my point that emotional cases aren't evidence - despite arguing that they are just above.

re-read what I wrote, didn't agree with you, simply phrased my sentence in a similar way...

No Police force will ever be capable of preventing all crimes, especially concerning break in crimes.

And you think giving guns to untrained civilians and also making them easily available to criminals will somehow benefit society? Again, take a look at the UK's gun culture compared to that of the USA

[GommeInc]

The idea that the streets of London are a dangerous place doesn't make much sense. Would arming everyone with guns really make a change? At the moment the weapon of choice is knives. Adding guns just means you don't have to put too much leg work into getting a target. The days of running over the other side of the street and jabbing someone in the back are over, now we can conveniently shoot someone we do not like (or be shot by someone who has beef with us) without having to break a sweat. It's still criminal. Adding guns will not solve anything. If anything, it will give whoever writes up the police reports some extra work, they will have to add guns into the mix.