Not really. Might want to talk with the gun runners and their enablers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Piers Morgan losing it again
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Not really. Might want to talk with the gun runners and their enablers.
Quote from Ricter:
You're not expecting perfection from those bans, are you?
Ricter, can I ask you a question. Will you promise to be 100% honest? Please?
Let's say you are a criminal (I know it's a stretch) and you were walking through a nice neighborhood scouting for a house to rob. You come across two huge homes that fit the bill. The home on the left has a sign in their yard that reads "we do not believe in guns or own any". The house on the right has a sign in their yard that reads"we absolutely support the 2nd amendment and this house is armed". Which house are you going to rob all things being equal?
I rob the house with the guns, when the occupants are gone. Guns are valuable on the black market. Don't laugh, I know (knew) guys who do just this.Quote from Maverick74:
Ricter, can I ask you a question. Will you promise to be 100% honest? Please?
Let's say you are a criminal (I know it's a stretch) and you were walking through a nice neighborhood scouting for a house to rob. You come across two huge homes that fit the bill. The home on the left has a sign in their yard that reads "we do not believe in guns or own any". The house on the right has a sign in their yard that reads"we absolutely support the 2nd amendment and this house is armed". Which house are you going to rob all things being equal?
Of course, guns as equalizers work as you intend to show, and crooks don't look for fair fights. Power differentials can be achieved on both sides, though. If everyone is armed, crooks will seek bigger guns, or different tactics. It's probably cheaper and better all around if we don't give people as much reason to steal, like the more equitable societies do.
Quote from Maverick74:
Ricter, can I ask you a question. Will you promise to be 100% honest? Please?
Let's say you are a criminal (I know it's a stretch) and you were walking through a nice neighborhood scouting for a house to rob. You come across two huge homes that fit the bill. The home on the left has a sign in their yard that reads "we do not believe in guns or own any". The house on the right has a sign in their yard that reads"we absolutely support the 2nd amendment and this house is armed". Which house are you going to rob all things being equal?
That's funny. It would of course depend on what weapons are being brought to bear, whether there was training, etc, and so forth.
John, are you having a bad day?
You're right. Uzis should be an impulse buy item at the checkout counters at Walmart. That'll limit their use and keep those mafiosos at bay.Quote from Maverick74:
Oh come on. See why we can't get anywhere in these debates? Brass, are you denying the fact that gangs and the mafia won't seize upon the opportunity to provide the street with guns if you ban them at the retail level?
Quote from Ricter:
I rob the house with the guns, when the occupants are gone. Guns are valuable on the black market. Don't laugh, I know (knew) guys who do just this.
Of course, guns as equalizers work as you intend to show, and crooks don't look for fair fights. Power differentials can be achieved on both sides, though. If everyone is armed, crooks will seek bigger guns, or different tactics. It's probably cheaper and better all around if we don't give people as much reason to steal, like the more equitable societies do.
Ha! I knew you would squirm out of this one. I wouldn't go anywhere near a home that is armed. You might "think" someone is not home but you know damn well you would NOT take that chance. Not if there was a huge home next door that is not armed. Don't be silly Ricter.
Quote from Ricter:
You're not expecting perfection from those bans, are you?
Please go back and read what I wrote. "Banning" doesn't work. It's not that banning delivers slightly less than perfect, or above average results. IT DOESN'T WORK. Drugs are more plentiful then they've ever been. The sex trade is a hundred billion dollar a year industry. Gambling, even more so. These aren't respectable outcomes. These are abject failures.
Chicago has a total handgun ban, if I'm not mistaken? Should be a utopian paradise by now, according to your logic? Guess not. Well, only if guns were banned throughout America, right? The only snag with that is it's totally unrealistic, unconstitutional, and the confiscation of guns from patriots nationwide would ignite a civil war. Lets ignore the long-term political consequences of that for a moment, and assume you got your wish. All gun ownership was abolished in the UNited Stated. Hooray!
Guess what happens next? Cartels and gangs import guns into the country along with drugs, and now only the police and criminals own guns. The law-abiding citizens are left defenseless against the State, gangs and criminals. Is that what you want?
You didn't ask me to be a dumb criminal. So, I case the joint.Quote from Maverick74:
Ha! I knew you would squirm out of this one. I wouldn't go anywhere near a home that is armed. You might "think" someone is not home but you know damn well you would NOT take that chance. Not if there was a huge home next door that is not armed. Don't be silly Ricter.