Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.Tgace said:You never "need" a gun until you NEED a gun.
Paul,Tulisan said:Part II
So we left off where she said guns are violent.
Me: That doesn't even make sense. A gun is an innatimate object, and can't have a trait like "violent."
Her: But only violent people carry guns...
Me: How can you say that? Do you think that every guard we employ or every cop on the street is a violent person?
Her: No...but they have a capacity for violence.
Me: They have a capacity to use force...there is a different between being able to use force to stop violence, and being a violent person.
Her: Well....I just don't think that you should have a gun in the office.
Me: Yea...and when one of our many death threatners decides to come in here and collect on the threat, then who do you think is going to stop them? (side note: we average around 2 death threats a month - from disgruntled ex-employees to people who we have "busted" for one thing or another)
Her: That is what the police are for...
Me: The police can't be everywhere, and are usually called to a scene after things have already gone from bad to worse. The police will not be able to stop someone from barging in here and shooting up the place. That is why I am armed and why I am at the front desk here instead of in an office with my door shut.
Her: Well, you know 85% of people shot were carrying guns themselves?
Me: Good...then you should take comfort in knowing that if someone decides to come in here with a gun, then they'll shoot at me first. Besides that, I would have to actually see where that statistic came from:
Her: (rattles of some source)
Me: That's great, but I actually have to SEE it. As you should know from your extensive education background, where from and how stats are taken are about as important as the statistic itself. But that's mote...what I don't understand is how you can consider yourself a security analyst when your anti-gun. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But...if you want to debate this some other time when I am not trying to get work done, I'd be happy to oblidge."
Her: O.K....we'll debate. And remember, you always bring your sources to a debate.
Me: Actually, I would like you to bring every statistic you have. I, on the other hand, will bring nothing, and I will still beat you in the arguement. This is because the arguement boils down to very basic logic that no statistic can provide.
Well...I guess part II was sort of anti-climactic. However, it still amazes me that she can be anti gun and consider herself a security analyst. How can you assess a site and make a recommendation if you are morally opposed to an intricate part of what is needed to secure many sites? The whole thing just blows my mind...
Paul
I personally am not a hard core gun guy , but I can't overlook reality . To be a leader you have to make your decitions based on your knowledge & expertise . So if I have security questions I would ask a security expert . That to me just seems logical . I guess it's like you said & mix of mind-set & beliefs . They may not be exactly the same , but you really are trying to find the best answer to complicated questions . In this case it would be , what do I have to do to keep people as safe as possible ? The best answer may not always match your fundimental beliefs . IE firearms carry , but thats not the question .47MartialMan said:Yeah boils down to mind-set and beliefs
You present a good argument . Has this always been the case up there ? I understand what you are saying about not having to worry about civillian carry . It does seem like a better way to carry on life , but do you think that a country like the USA could ever change that much ? Wouldn't it be kinda difficult & unrealistic for this country ? We are already so far the other way . A change like that would probably never take place for one reason because of political interest . I think the situation we have here could be tweeked , but not changed to the extent which exist there . So we have a totally differant set of circumstances to deal with . What are we to do about TEXAS & LA LOL ?Andrew Green said:Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.
But there is that downward spiral... The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...
Guns aren't a big problem up here. Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine. So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between. LEaving us with little or no need to carry one.
What you seem to be saying is that "the more guns there are, the more violence there is going to be." I don't think this is necessarily the case. Someone brought up the Kennesaw, Georgia situation. This town is a great example of the fallacy of the "more guns=more crime/violence" theory. If requiring the head of [almost] every household to own a gun causes more crime, why did the violent crime rate drop 80% by the next year and remain there? --note, it's been 23 years since that law went into effect--Andrew Green said:Yup, and if you are in a high crime area with lots of guns being carried, it might be a good idea to have one yourself.
But there is that downward spiral... The only reason you need one is cause there are so many other people with one, and the more people that carry them the more people feel this way...
Guns aren't a big problem up here. Civillians don't carry, and we manage just fine. So I am quite happy with the rules that say we can't carry, cause that makes them much fewer and far between. Leaving us with little or no need to carry one.
Nope, I said more guns = even more guns.kenpotex said:What you seem to be saying is that "the more guns there are, the more violence there is going to be."
Andrew Green said:Personal preference and trust, I'd rather live in a place where no one feels the need to carry a weapon.
So... Canada is Fascist?Tulisan said:But, to want to force everyone to comply with your beliefs in not carrying and to support making protection illegal by outlawing the only thing that can equalize a gun wielding criminal is faciest. It is faciest in every sense.
Yup, that they did.Tgace said:Your Constitution doesnt protect the ownership of them either. Ours does. Its the 2nd one too so our founders found the issue quite important....
It wasnt about fighting off the English....its about maintaining a nation of free people.But the question is, is it still important?