Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tasers for the Public?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • zap
    replied
    Originally posted by Radio
    http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

    VERY Good Websight.
    If a person cannot logically understand these facts then they are too far gone and have been Sucked so deep into the Liberal Lie that all hope of self thought and reasoning has left their mind.

    Let them wander aimlessly through the rest of their life believeing a lie.
    One thing in my short life that i have come to realize is that it is Eaiser to believe a Lie than the Truth, even when the truth stares you in the FACE. Is that not F'ed up or what?

    In my way of thinking it is. I often run into people who try use logic to make an illogical point. Just makes me wanna slap em up side the head and say SKIPPY!! TIE YOUR SHOES!!! LOL


    Seriously though....I think most of the opposition to the concept that free people should be aforded every opportunity to defend themselves....is based on the fact that some people have never experienced, and therefore do not understand, the concept of the correct use of self defense tools such as firearms.

    We do not see "BAN THE CARS!" on the news after a drunk kills some innocent child. Because EVERYONE understands that the drunk used the car incorrectly.

    We do not see "BAN BASEBALL!" ...when some thug beats a store owner with a baseball bat. Because EVERYONE understands that the thug used the baseball bat incorrectly.

    We do not see "TAX KITCHEN KNIFE MAKERS OUT OF BUSINESS!" ...when some bipolar chick slices and dices her old man. Because EVERYONE understands she used the knife incorrectly.

    Why then....would we see, and be forced to defend, all of these things with firearms are used incorrectly?

    I say we should not.

    That to me is a logical argument....but some will disagree. To those...I will once again repeat the question no one has ever been able to logically answer....

    WHY...would a CRIMINAL by DEFINITION...be stopped from owning or using a gun...because of a law restricting them?




    (BTW....it IS a good link...why I posted it earlier in the thread )

    Leave a comment:


  • Radio
    replied
    http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html

    VERY Good Websight.
    If a person cannot logically understand these facts then they are too far gone and have been Sucked so deep into the Liberal Lie that all hope of self thought and reasoning has left their mind.

    Let them wander aimlessly through the rest of their life believeing a lie.
    One thing in my short life that i have come to realize is that it is Eaiser to believe a Lie than the Truth, even when the truth stares you in the FACE. Is that not F'ed up or what?

    Leave a comment:


  • scanner
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    The US has proven that when you allow people to have guns, thousands and thousands of people will die each year because of it.

    I should have one because I'm a police officer.
    Cool, a citizen should have one too because he is a free citizen. USA is not the only country that allows self-defence with firearms.

    Second point, if US would get rid of the hot spots like Detroit, LA, etc, their homicide rate would be smaller than Canadian. If you don't believe just visit many US towns and counties where everybody carries a gun and those places have no homicides for years.

    BTW, if you are in Toronto, can you see who is responsible for 90% of homicide s ?
    Last edited by scanner; 07-29-2005, 07:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radio
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    The US has proven that when you allow people to have guns, thousands and thousands of people will die each year because of it.
    Your Weapons Owning Governments propaganda to help keep its populus under control. See Propaganda - Germany 1940's.

    God made man.
    Smith & Wesson made man Equal.

    If you got 3 big Fuggers attacking you....... wtf are you supposed to do? Call the police and maby they will get there in the 30 seconds it takes to beat / kill you? -- I think not. Smith & Wesson to the Rescue. Then call police.

    If a 300 pund man wants to rape and murder your woman. What do you do? Call the police? -- I think not. Smith & Wesson To the rescue. Then call the police.

    Finch your idea that the police are there to save and protect the public is a reasonable and understandable stance. Yet the police CANNOT be everywhere at once and Stop Crime Before it happens, this is the real world. Ultimately ones protection comes down to an individuals ability to protect him/her self. Keeping "tools" of protection from the public does not do anything but Hinder the publics ability to protect them self. The criminal Element knows ways of getting what they need that the normal non criminal public does not. You can Ban guns all you want in a society but those who opporate outside of the law will allways have a way / means to get what they want or need.

    Learn it, Know it, Live it.

    Stop believeing the all powerfull / knowing Governments Propaganda.

    Leave a comment:


  • Centurion44
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    A
    With that said, I'll be leaving these forums. For a land that considers itself free, it's amazing how much anger arises when someone expresses their opinion.

    Take care.

    No, anger just rises at the prospect of having our freedoms taken away. If you could understand that, then there probably wouldn't be an anti-gun law in Canada.

    Rather than debating facts that are thrown at you, you'd just rather turn and walk away. I think Sam Adams said it best:

    "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

    Leave a comment:


  • Centurion44
    replied
    I tired to stay out of this, but Finch is getting out of control.

    Finch, your are believing what your gun-free country is telling you. The fact is if you eliminate "children" 15-17 years of age that are already criminals with a record (mostly gang members) then the facts will show that kiddie pools kill more kids annually in the US than firearms. But your apparently socialist government doesn't want you to know that because then it may cause an uproar and god forbid the citizens be armed enough to overthrow an oppresive government.

    It boils down to one simple fact, Finch: The government should be scared of the people, not vice versa.

    Let's say you run a country. Now, you want complete rule over this country, but there is only one problem: the citizens are armed. What would you do? Pass a law banning all guns?

    It's easy for you to sit on your side of the fence because you get to carry a gun. So IMO you shouldn't even be allowed to speak for your citizens. It's like your holding your hand over their mouths and saying "we like having no guns just fine" while you have one holstered on your hip.

    And another thing, stop spouting this liberal garbage. Give us facts. How many people are killed in the US anually? don't give me this "thousands and thousands" crap. Give me a number and a source.

    Now let me tell you about Kennesaw, GA. A few years ago the burglary rate in Kennesaw was had skyrocketed. The public demanded the Mayor and city council do something, so they did. The answer? A new city ordinance was passed requiring each home within city limits to have a gun. Over the next year the burglary rate dropped 84%. As far as I know to this date, no one has been charged with violating the ordinance.

    You want fair? Your so sure your gun control laws are working? Then go one or two days without a gun at work. After all, your citizen's arent' armed so what do you have to worry about?

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    Alright...LAST post on this issue in this thread...regardless of what you say in reply.


    Originally posted by Finch
    Again, you're putting words in my mouth. They aren't too stupid, they just haven't received the months and months of training (plus the following years of experience) that police officers have.
    No...you said that civilians can't be trusted to make good decisions under stressful situations...

    Months and Months of training plus following years of experience. I don't know about Canada, but my academy firearms training was 60 hours. Prior to that, I have been teaching people to shoot for nearly 20 years.

    BTW....how many years of experience did you have the DAY you pinned on that badge and began patrolling the streets with a loaded firearm? I read below you have one year experience at this point.

    I have run into cops before that think they know more and are better than others in their community....but I also know lawyers, doctors, politicitions, and factory workers with that same attitude.


    Originally posted by Finch
    I don't appreciate your condescension.
    No...not condenscending at all. I am sorry if you choose to take it that way...however, that is just my aknowledgement that I have seen and heard this same old tire line over and over and over. It always goes the same and sounds the same and uses the same points that don't stand to logical and reasonable test.

    Originally posted by Finch
    Got news for you...you don't stop being a person when you become a cop...and....you are NO BETTER than ANYONE ELSE either.
    Where did I say I was better than anyone else? Police officers and military personnel are highly trained with firearms and thus are more capable of knowing when to use them (and when it's justified under law). Joe Blow may have a rough idea, but under stress/pressure, he may start shooting people he has no rightful authority to.
    I did not say you said you were better than anyone else....but how else can you justify that only the military and police are capable of knowing how to, and actually acting correctly under stressful situations? You can't. The attitude is clearly expressed...if you do not feel that way or mean it that way....you might have to re-evaluate the way you are making your points.



    Originally posted by Finch
    Again, this is just my opinion, but lives are worth more than property. I'd rather have a high crime rate in my community than people having the right to kill people who took their lawnmower.
    As would I, and 90% of the LAWFUL gun owners in this country. The police can't be everywhere. That is a fact that cannot be argued with. What would you want your daughter to do if she was accausted? Be able to fight back? Or give in?





    Originally posted by Finch
    In those situations, it'd be great if a bystander had a firearm to help out the victim. However, by allowing citizens to carry firearms, many more innocent civilians will die.
    There is absolutely no way for you to justify that claim. It is NOT fact that allowing citizens to carry guns will result in many more civilian deaths. In the states that have allowed civilian concealed carry....the OPPISITE has been proven to be true.

    (again...this is the same old line we hear here in the United States over and over and over...yet it NEVER comes true. It goes along with the cowboy shootouts in the streets theme)




    Originally posted by Finch
    With the US having a very high amount of gun-related violence, I'd say it's the other way around; Making firearms so widely available is throwing those citizens to the wolves.
    You have agreed that bad guys will get a gun somehow...they do now. We know that if there were no guns...they would use other means....as I said before....we can divide this all the way down to physical size, strength, and how long the stick is. It just doesn't change the crimminal ideology.

    What a gun does is allow more of an even playing field BEFORE the police arrive. Removing the ability to defend themselves is the surest way to make a civilian a victim.



    Originally posted by Finch
    Canada's doin' fine. I mean, we have violent crimes, but we also don't have hundreds of people being shot every day. I can't speak for other countries, but Canada overall is a peaceful country with minimal murders a year.

    Then explain why there are so few firearms used by suspects in Canada. Granted, I've only been a police officer for a year, but in that time, I've only ever recovered one firearm off a suspect. But, ultimately, you're right; If a suspect wants a firearm, he'll get one.
    That I belive is completely candit and honest.

    As we have discussed prior, we have many more people and many more guns. Without the guns, the crimminals would use other means. Without LEGAL guns, civilians would become VICTIMS much more often.

    I belive that overall America is a peaceful country as well....but we also have violent crimes...which is caused by CRIMMINALS who ignore the laws. Remember, that is how they get guns now....passing a law to ban firearms only removes guns from the people who are NOT CRIMMINALs.

    As said before...how does disarming me make you safer? ...it does not unless you think I am too stupid and inept to be responsible with firearms.



    Originally posted by Finch
    Judging by the manner in which you're discussing the issue, I'd say you're the one on a high horse.
    Possibly...if I sound that way I do not mean it personally. I do however know what I am talking about. People often take confidence in my talking or writing as arrogance. I do not mean offense.

    Originally posted by Finch
    Firearms and lives saved have an inverse relationship.
    This is a fine quote....but it simply does not stand to scrutiny or statistical evidence.



    Originally posted by Finch
    For a land that considers itself free, it's amazing how much anger arises when someone expresses their opinion.
    No one here has expressed ANY anger with the expression of your opinion. I certainly have not. I however do not turn from what I feel is frankly false information in the form of a challenge.

    Honestly Finch, I am passionate about this topic, as you can tell. I have been able to convince people who felt as you do that they were mistaken when they find out all the information. My hope was to offer you the same experience.

    I do get frustrated when people ignore common sense for a 'liberal line' or just go back to repeating a flawed opinion as if it is fact.

    As for the free part, I have already sufficiently expressed my opinion that the issues we discuss now, the ability to defend one's self with appropriate means, is solidly a symptom OF A FREE SOCIETY!




    Originally posted by Finch
    With that said, I'll be leaving these forums. .

    I am truly sorry you feel that way. I enjoy the discussion without personal attacks...that is a rare thing here. I hope you will reconsider.
    Last edited by zap; 07-28-2005, 01:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mosetti
    replied
    I am not going to conclude that these statistics are proof that gun ownership causes crime to decrease, however here are the Interpol Crime Statistics comparing crime in the US and several European countries (couldn't find Canada):

    Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
    4161 - US
    7736 - Germany
    6941 - France
    9927 - England and Wales

    Here are the Interpol 1995 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
    5278 - US
    8179 - Germany
    6316 - France
    7206 - England & Wales

    Leave a comment:


  • Finch
    replied
    Originally posted by zap
    ....I understood your opinion the same way...that people other than cops or military are too stupid to understand the correct way to defend themselves without being a menace to society.
    Again, you're putting words in my mouth. They aren't too stupid, they just haven't received the months and months of training (plus the following years of experience) that police officers have.

    ...same old liberal line we have here all the time.
    I don't appreciate your condescension.

    [quote]The problem with the argument is that it contradicts itself everytime it is used. Cops ARE PEOPLE from the general population! So is a SOLDIER or anyone in the MILITARY. They are not born with some supirior gene that makes them able to understand when understress when it is ok to use deadly force. Got news for you...you don't stop being a person when you become a cop...and....you are NO BETTER than ANYONE ELSE either.[/quote

    Where did I say I was better than anyone else? Police officers and military personnel are highly trained with firearms and thus are more capable of knowing when to use them (and when it's justified under law). Joe Blow may have a rough idea, but under stress/pressure, he may start shooting people he has no rightful authority to.

    To clarify...some states in the US allow deadly force to protect one's property...most do not. However, if all of the states DID allow deadly force to protect property....our crime problem would go down significantly over night.
    Again, this is just my opinion, but lives are worth more than property. I'd rather have a high crime rate in my community than people having the right to kill people who took their lawnmower.

    ........you make the statement that there are always exceptions to the rule...and that there are cases when 'everyone' knows it's ok to shoot someone.
    Correct.

    Yet, you insist on claiming that people should not be allowed the means to defend themselves in such situations.
    In those situations, it'd be great if a bystander had a firearm to help out the victim. However, by allowing citizens to carry firearms, many more innocent civilians will die.

    ..................that is basically throwing those citizens to the wolves....when you say you are a cop to save lives. If you don't see the hypocricy in that statement....you are simply towing the old well defined liberal line and will more than likely circle back once again.
    With the US having a very high amount of gun-related violence, I'd say it's the other way around; Making firearms so widely available is throwing those citizens to the wolves.

    Countries who have banned guns have experienced sharp INCREASES in violent crime rates. Period.
    Canada's doin' fine. I mean, we have violent crimes, but we also don't have hundreds of people being shot every day. I can't speak for other countries, but Canada overall is a peaceful country with minimal murders a year.

    You just don't seem to be willing to see and admit that guns used in violent crime are used ILLEGALLY by BAD GUYS. You know...the CRIMINALS who DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS in the first place. Those guns are obtained ILLEGALLY by the BGs. No law will prevent that.
    Then explain why there are so few firearms used by suspects in Canada. Granted, I've only been a police officer for a year, but in that time, I've only ever recovered one firearm off a suspect. But, ultimately, you're right; If a suspect wants a firearm, he'll get one.

    If you really are a cop who cares about saving lives....get off your high horse and realize that by depriving a citizen from defense is the same as ENDANGERING the very life you want to protect!
    Judging by the manner in which you're discussing the issue, I'd say you're the one on a high horse.

    Firearms and lives saved have an inverse relationship.

    With that said, I'll be leaving these forums. For a land that considers itself free, it's amazing how much anger arises when someone expresses their opinion.

    Take care.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puget Sound
    replied
    Originally posted by mosetti
    Don't forget the other reasons we need guns in America:
    1. To hunt dangerous or delicious animals.
    2. To keep the King of England outta your face.
    "A gun is not a weapon, Marge. It's a tool. Like a butcher knife, or a harpoon, or...uh, a...an alligator. You just need more education on the subject. Tell you what. You come with me to an NRA meeting, and if you still don't think guns are great...we can argue some more."

    Leave a comment:


  • mosetti
    replied
    Don't forget the other reasons we need guns in America:
    1. To hunt dangerous or delicious animals.
    2. To keep the King of England outta your face.

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    ....I understood your opinion the same way...that people other than cops or military are too stupid to understand the correct way to defend themselves without being a menace to society.

    ...same old liberal line we have here all the time.

    The problem with the argument is that it contradicts itself everytime it is used. Cops ARE PEOPLE from the general population! So is a SOLDIER or anyone in the MILITARY. They are not born with some supirior gene that makes them able to understand when understress when it is ok to use deadly force. Got news for you...you don't stop being a person when you become a cop...and....you are NO BETTER than ANYONE ELSE either.

    ....the last BIG notable, argument about that came from Adolf Hitler.


    To clarify...some states in the US allow deadly force to protect one's property...most do not. However, if all of the states DID allow deadly force to protect property....our crime problem would go down significantly over night.


    ........you make the statement that there are always exceptions to the rule...and that there are cases when 'everyone' knows it's ok to shoot someone. Yet, you insist on claiming that people should not be allowed the means to defend themselves in such situations.
    ..................that is basically throwing those citizens to the wolves....when you say you are a cop to save lives. If you don't see the hypocricy in that statement....you are simply towing the old well defined liberal line and will more than likely circle back once again.


    One more thing I should point out since I did jump back into this. Your 'statistics' were based on the number of guns in the US, and what you say is a disproportionate number of gun deaths. We have more guns than any other country. I know you agree....but I didn't see you mentioning violent crime rates. If guns were not available, BGs would use any and every other means to get what they want. But a law, depriving law-abiding citizens of guns, removes from them a method of defense against the BG who may have a gun or sword or knive illegally anyway.
    Countries who have banned guns have experienced sharp INCREASES in violent crime rates. Period.


    You just don't seem to be willing to see and admit that guns used in violent crime are used ILLEGALLY by BAD GUYS. You know...the CRIMINALS who DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS in the first place. Those guns are obtained ILLEGALLY by the BGs. No law will prevent that.

    If you really are a cop who cares about saving lives....get off your high horse and realize that by depriving a citizen from defense is the same as ENDANGERING the very life you want to protect!





    Maybe this link is in order....

    http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html



    .............edit....This visually makes the same argument I used the other day here....


    Last edited by zap; 07-28-2005, 09:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JKooL
    Guest replied
    Yeah, what Puget said...

    Leave a comment:


  • Finch
    replied
    Originally posted by Puget Sound
    When you basically said that civilians aren't smart enough to operate a firearm and don't know when and how to use them properly.
    You're putting words into my mouth (or onto my screen :/ ). I'm a smart guy who went to university, but prior to my training at the academy, I shouldn't have been anywhere near a firearm.

    Sorry, but if a person breaks into my house and is aggressive in any way, they're coming out in a body bag.
    Pretty hostile way of putting it, but I have no issue with that. You didn't mention them being aggressive in your previous post. If someone breaks into your house and is threatening you or trying to harm you, then by all means, shoot 'em up.

    Don't break into my house and you won't get shot.
    Let's say the police get there while the subject is inside. They don't have authority to shoot the suspect (they need more than someone simply breaking into a residence). Unless they're threatening you/agressive, I don't see why you should be able to shoot him/her. His/her life is still worth more than the china he may have taken from your cabinet.

    But here in the Land of the Free, if someone breaks into your house, you have a legal right to eliminate the threat.
    We're going in circles here, but as I said, if the intruder is threatening you, then sure, have at 'er. But, let's say you startle the intruder and he/she takes off. Would you still shoot him/her (ie. there's no threat of bodily harm at this point)?


    Now, don't get me wrong. I know I'm not Mr.Popular here, but I am on the good guy's side. I have a severe distaste for criminals and love catching them. However, without a threat to life, I don't think anyone should be shot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puget Sound
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    Relax. It's just an opinion.

    Where did I say that?
    When you basically said that civilians aren't smart enough to operate a firearm and don't know when and how to use them properly.

    Originally posted by Finch
    Hence why people shouldn't have firearms.
    Sorry, but if a person breaks into my house and is aggressive in any way, they're coming out in a body bag. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Don't break into my house and you won't get shot.

    Originally posted by Finch
    Also, should cops shoot all B&E suspects? And let's say they don't, but the suspect is convicted of B&E, should they get the death penalty? The fact that you would kill a human being who threatens your dog is scary.
    Police officers don't have a duty to protect. They are not legally obligated to protect my property. They don't have the right to shoot a B&E suspect unless the suspect threatens their life or the life of someone else. But here in the Land of the Free, if someone breaks into your house, you have a legal right to eliminate the threat.

    Bottom line is...if someone breaks into your house and you call the police, they could take half an hour to get there if you live in a rural area. The BEST line of defense you have is a personally owned firearm and every year thousands of Americans use them to JUSTLY defend themselves or their property.

    If I hear someone that is obviously prowling around OUTSIDE my house, you bet I'll call the police. But if someone is INSIDE my house, there is NO WAY IN HELL I am going to call the police and wait for them to show up. The last thing that perp is going to see is the business end of a 12 gauge shotgun.

    In my town, the ONE police officer on duty could take as much as 30 minutes to get there. The county deputies could take an hour. I wouldn't expect anyone to wait around without taking the situation into their own hands.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3332 users online. 221 members and 3111 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X