Open Carry Of Firearms: Yea Or Nay?
|
Open Carry of Firearms: Yea or Nay?
Psycho Slip said: » That would be true if there weren't a bajillion other variables for the reason a person may fire a gun that need to be taken into account (and it's a greater account). I think it's already been stated here, if there were open carry of firearms nationwide or anything, not your average crazy person with a mental disorder or unstable people are going to be able to get a license; they wouldn't be just handed out. OMG are you guys seriously going to try to argue with me on this? It doesn't say "more people carrying guns greatly increases the chances someone will use it" It says "more chance someone will use it" even a 0.00000000000000001% higher chance someone will use it by flooding the market with 50,000,000,000 guns is still a higher chance.
No matter how infinitesimal the chance is raised, it's still raised. Also it doesn't say ***about how it will be used, so I'd say it's a 100% chance that the more people get them, the more they will be used.. At least I certainly hope that's the case, all we need is a bunch of idiots running around strapped who've never went through training or to a range to learn how to shoot the damned thing. There really is no argument here, his statement is correct as it's stated. I only OC. I'd rather be the last person chosen to be robbed/assaulted. Even dumb criminals understand the concept of risk vs reward, and nobody really wants to be shot. If you know i DO have a gun, as opposed to there being the chance that I'm concealing one, are you still going to bother me, or move on to a likely easier, less hardened target?
Before the comments on making myself a target, or my gun's gonna get taken from me and I'll get shot with it, go find the many news stories on this happening. I'll wait. Good luck. again, you don't know if it will raise or lower it, you're merely guessing based upon an assumption.
So, no it isn't correct, at all.
[+]
Whatever you say.
Psycho Slip said: » OMG are you guys seriously going to try to argue with me on this? It doesn't say "more people carrying guns greatly increases the chances someone will use it" It says "more chance someone will use it" even a 0.00000000000000001% higher chance someone will use it by flooding the market with 50,000,000,000 guns is still a higher chance. No matter how infinitesimal the chance is raised, it's still raised. Also it doesn't say ***about how it will be used, so I'd say it's a 100% chance that the more people get them, the more they will be used.. At least I certainly hope that's the case, all we need is a bunch of idiots running around strapped who've never went through training or to a range to learn how to shoot the damned thing. There really is no argument here, his statement is correct as it's stated. Let's all sit inside plastic bubbles never let outside, because you know, you could trip, fall, and break your neck, or get hit by a falling building, or there may be an escaped albino lion from the zoo who loves eating babies. We should close all the zoos now.
[+]
Wenuden said: » Before the comments on making myself a target, or my gun's gonna get taken from me and I'll get shot with it, go find the many news stories on this happening. I'll wait. Good luck. It's not an impossibility for someone who is open-carrying to lose control of their sidearms. It even happens to police officers. http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/crime/20040916/4/1119 Certainly it is every police officer's worst fear (losing their sidearm to an attacker) and they are trained to avoid the likelihood of this case, but it can happen. For sure a police officer's weapon is already loaded and live, but if a criminal chose to fight over an OC weapon it could be loaded similarly. Leviathan.Hohenheim said: » Psycho Slip said: » OMG are you guys seriously going to try to argue with me on this? It doesn't say "more people carrying guns greatly increases the chances someone will use it" It says "more chance someone will use it" even a 0.00000000000000001% higher chance someone will use it by flooding the market with 50,000,000,000 guns is still a higher chance. No matter how infinitesimal the chance is raised, it's still raised. Also it doesn't say ***about how it will be used, so I'd say it's a 100% chance that the more people get them, the more they will be used.. At least I certainly hope that's the case, all we need is a bunch of idiots running around strapped who've never went through training or to a range to learn how to shoot the damned thing. There really is no argument here, his statement is correct as it's stated. Let's all sit inside plastic bubbles never let outside, because you know, you could trip, fall, and break your neck, or get hit by a falling building, or there may be an escaped albino lion from the zoo who loves eating babies. We should close all the zoos now. Psycho Slip said: » Leviathan.Hohenheim said: » Psycho Slip said: » OMG are you guys seriously going to try to argue with me on this? It doesn't say "more people carrying guns greatly increases the chances someone will use it" It says "more chance someone will use it" even a 0.00000000000000001% higher chance someone will use it by flooding the market with 50,000,000,000 guns is still a higher chance. No matter how infinitesimal the chance is raised, it's still raised. Also it doesn't say ***about how it will be used, so I'd say it's a 100% chance that the more people get them, the more they will be used.. At least I certainly hope that's the case, all we need is a bunch of idiots running around strapped who've never went through training or to a range to learn how to shoot the damned thing. There really is no argument here, his statement is correct as it's stated. Let's all sit inside plastic bubbles never let outside, because you know, you could trip, fall, and break your neck, or get hit by a falling building, or there may be an escaped albino lion from the zoo who loves eating babies. We should close all the zoos now. It's the same principle. The more zoos there are, the more chances of a carnivorous lion escaping and killing people. So we should totally close and ban all zoos. Just like we should ban all guns because you know, it's dangerous~ The best I can tell you're trying to imply that I was implying guns should be outlawed because every gun raises the chances someone will use it on another person.. Your reply would make sense, except I never implied that, ever. In fact I've even said in this very thread that I think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I'm just not going to try and pretend like what he said isn't just common sense, it's common sense that applies to everything. More of something = more chance it will be used/found/whatever. Even if it's a ridiculously small amount, it's still a simple fact. His statement doesn't say that more guns means that someone WILL use it, but the chance is raised, regardless. Psycho Slip said: » The best I can tell you're trying to imply that I was implying guns should be outlawed because every gun raises the chances someone will use it on another person.. Your reply would make sense, except I never implied that, ever. In fact I've even said in this very thread that I think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. sorr,y I haven't read all 11 pages of the same arguing since guns came into existence. that statement, about more guns = more chances they'll be used, is extremely ignorant of how things actually work. i'd be willing to bet that the more widespread gun education and accessibility is, the less over all gun related anything there'll be. history has shown that forbidding anything and keeping people ignorant does the reverse of what is actually desired. You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. That's the nature of chance.
[+]
Psycho Slip said: » The best I can tell you're trying to imply that I was implying guns should be outlawed because every gun raises the chances someone will use it on another person.. Your reply would make sense, except I never implied that, ever. In fact I've even said in this very thread that I think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I'm just not going to try and pretend like what he said isn't just common sense, it's common sense that applies to everything. More of something = more chance it will be used/found/whatever. Even if it's a ridiculously small amount, it's still a simple fact. His statement doesn't say that more guns means that someone WILL use it, but the chance is raised, regardless. You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. used and found is incomparable there. appearance only has one requirement; it to exist, whereas using something can have multiple requirements, just because you have it, doesn't mean you will use it. you're assuming that if you had a gun, you would use it, where it's not as simple as that. all i can say is now, I agree with jetakuu, people don't get that,
correlation does not imply causation Psycho Slip said: » You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. That's the nature of chance. what's the cause of this now. it's not the fact that people are having multiple partners; that's not really the cause, it's the fact that the sex is unprotected. No I'm not assuming that just because you have it means you'll use it, I'm saying that it increases the chance someone will use it, which it does. If you were to calculate the likelihood a gun would be used, the amount of guns out there, whether actual or estimate, would be part of the equation, and in that equation the more guns out there would increase the end result (the chance a gun would be used).
You couldn't calculate the likelihood of a gun being used without that variable. Leviathan.Hohenheim said: » Psycho Slip said: » You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. That's the nature of chance. what's the cause of this now. it's not the fact that people are having multiple partners; that's not really the cause, it's the fact that the sex is unprotected. Psycho Slip said: » Leviathan.Hohenheim said: » Psycho Slip said: » You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. That's the nature of chance. what's the cause of this now. it's not the fact that people are having multiple partners; that's not really the cause, it's the fact that the sex is unprotected. again and the cause of this isn't the sex, but rather a defect with the condom, or not using the birth control properly, etc. but i'm just going to walk away. i never learn that debating is futile because you'll never change someones mind with facts. it's only with changing their moral and ideological framework can someones opinion be changed. <_< you can take every precaution in the world and have none fail, but the only sure way to not get an STD is to not have sex.
Quote: i never learn that debating is futile because you'll never change someones mind with facts. Too true. Psycho Slip said: » No I'm not assuming that just because you have it means you'll use it, I'm saying that it increases the chance someone will use it, which it does. If you were to calculate the likelihood a gun would be used, the amount of guns out there, whether actual or estimate, would be part of the equation, and in that equation the more guns out there would increase the end result (the chance a gun would be used). You couldn't calculate the likelihood of a gun being used without that variable. where's your evidence for this? nowhere in the world does the existence of something increase that it may be used. take nuclear missiles for instance, it doesn't matter how many there are, the chances they will be used is still the same, in face probably less with the more there are. reality and facts trump "common sense" every time. Leviathan.Hohenheim said: » Psycho Slip said: » Leviathan.Hohenheim said: » Psycho Slip said: » You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. That's the nature of chance. what's the cause of this now. it's not the fact that people are having multiple partners; that's not really the cause, it's the fact that the sex is unprotected. again and the cause of this isn't the sex, but rather a defect with the condom, or not using the birth control properly, etc. but i'm just going to walk away. i never learn that debating is futile because you'll never change someones mind with facts. it's only with changing their moral and ideological framework can someones opinion be changed. not entirely true, but in most cases, unfortunately. Bahamut.Jetackuu said: » Psycho Slip said: » No I'm not assuming that just because you have it means you'll use it, I'm saying that it increases the chance someone will use it, which it does. If you were to calculate the likelihood a gun would be used, the amount of guns out there, whether actual or estimate, would be part of the equation, and in that equation the more guns out there would increase the end result (the chance a gun would be used). You couldn't calculate the likelihood of a gun being used without that variable. where's your evidence for this? nowhere in the world does the existence of something increase that it may be used. take nuclear missiles for instance, it doesn't matter how many there are, the chances they will be used is still the same, in face probably less with the more there are. reality and facts trump "common sense" every time. yeah it's true jet, but the thing is that people don't listen to facts and observe reality; they decide by what their individual framework is, which their view of "common sense" is a thing in that framework. i read this is some political book recently about how policies actually work and how people a lot of the time vote against their self-interest, even presented with the facts. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/justice/california-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
So, this shooting would have still happened if everyone wasnt allowed to carry a gun right? lol you americans are funny, you will debate anything to be able to carry a gun to seem tough, guns only make pussies tough guys. Carbuncle.Brakiss said: » http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/justice/california-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 So, this shooting would have still happened if everyone wasnt allowed to carry a gun right? lol you americans are funny, you will debate anything to be able to carry a gun to seem tough, guns only make pussies tough guys. guns don't kill people, people kill people. if that person really wanted to kill, they would've used any means necessary. Carbuncle.Brakiss said: » http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/justice/california-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 So, this shooting would have still happened if everyone wasnt allowed to carry a gun right? lol you americans are funny, you will debate anything to be able to carry a gun to seem tough, guns only make pussies tough guys. Should probably deal with the Muslims all of Europe is pandering to before making asinine comments about guns being bad.
[+]
Psycho Slip said: » You have unprotected sex with 5 people, then someone else has unprotected sex with 50 people, the 2nd person's chances of catching an STD is raised, or would like to try and argue that as well? It doesn't mean either will, but the person with 50 people has a higher chance than the person with 5 people. That's the nature of chance.
[+]
Psycho Slip said: » No I'm not assuming that just because you have it means you'll use it, I'm saying that it increases the chance someone will use it, which it does. If you were to calculate the likelihood a gun would be used, the amount of guns out there, whether actual or estimate, would be part of the equation, and in that equation the more guns out there would increase the end result (the chance a gun would be used). You couldn't calculate the likelihood of a gun being used without that variable. volkom said: » Carbuncle.Brakiss said: » http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/justice/california-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 So, this shooting would have still happened if everyone wasnt allowed to carry a gun right? lol you americans are funny, you will debate anything to be able to carry a gun to seem tough, guns only make pussies tough guys. guns don't kill people, people kill people. if that person really wanted to kill, they would've used any means necessary. No sense in arguing with Brakiss, they have already proven themselves to be completely unable to have civil or educated conversation over this topic on an earlier page. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.