Correlation does not imply causation. The low crime rate in Switzerland has less to do with the populace and their attitude to guns and more with the fact they have an incredibly high standard of living with almost no outright poverty and a social safety net which takes away a large part of the motivation why someone would go out and rob a store.

 

This.

---

Correlation does not imply causation. The low crime rate in Switzerland has less to do with the populace and their attitude to guns and more with the fact they have an incredibly high standard of living with almost no outright poverty and a social safety net which takes away a large part of the motivation why someone would go out and rob a store.

 

Not buying it. It's false to attribute poverty as "a large part of the motivation why someone would go out and rob a store." That's a slander on poor people. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are a criminal. And just because you're a criminal doesn't mean you did it due to poverty.

 

Criminals tend to be parasites; that'd rather live the life of crime than a "straight" lifestyle. The reasons are as numerous as there are criminals, I'm  sure.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

If you rob a store with a gun then you are taking the risk of being shot. Again, I don't know what happened, but that would apply regardless of what happened. If you rob someone at gun point then you are taking that risk. Who is the cause of this entire situation? The robber. Period.

---

I used to have a shirt that read "Criminals for Gun Control, why should we risk being injured on the job" And yes, it was sarcastic

---

Not buying it. It's false to attribute poverty as "a large part of the motivation why someone would go out and rob a store." That's a slander on poor people. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you are a criminal. And just because you're a criminal doesn't mean you did it due to poverty.

 

Criminals tend to be parasites; that'd rather live the life of crime than a "straight" lifestyle. The reasons are as numerous as there are criminals, I'm  sure.

 

The US has both the most guns per capita AND the highest crime rate in the world according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That right there falsifies the notion of guns as a crime deterrent more than your "slander on poor people" and "not all poor people are criminals" arguments.

 

Poverty is more strongly linked to crime than the presence of guns as a deterrent is.

---

The United Nations is so anti-American and you listen to them........ Sheesh

---

The United Nations is so anti-American and you listen to them........ Sheesh

 

Just to clear this up in case I'm wrong about this being sarcasm:

 

The statistics were reported by the US. The UN just organized the reports of (most) nations into a single place. The data reported by the FBI matches the data reported by the UN.

---

If you rob a store with a gun then you are taking the risk of being shot. Again, I don't know what happened, but that would apply regardless of what happened. If you rob someone at gun point then you are taking that risk. Who is the cause of this entire situation? The robber. Period.

 

Thank you!!!!! :thumbsup: 

---

Yes you did miss something. A lot, actually.

 

You missed the fact that although I do carry a sidearm and shoot regularly, it's never at anything living. I come from a family of hunters, but gave it up almost 25 years ago. I didn't think it was right to kill something I didn't eat. I never liked wild game. I have no problem with those who do, but won't do it myself because it crosses the line within myself over killing, and why killing is righ or wrong.

 

Now, all that said, I stand by what I said, and do so for one simple reason. I will likely never kill anyone. I hope that is the case. HOWEVER, if I do, there's going to be a darn good reason for it. It's not going to be anger, retribution, or anything of the sort. It's going to be for one and one reason only. That reason is this: I am going to see someone violating another person in a violent and lawless manner. I won't ask to be put into that position. However, if fate decides to place me there, my response will be immediate and unquestionable. If I should ever see someone violating another person in a violent way, I will not hesitate to end it with any means at my disposal. Hopefully it won't be a life and death decision for me and the person I'm confronted with. It won't end well. I would rather avoid it.

 

I will not, however, stop and try to rationalize what is happening. If someone is criminally violating another innocent person, I will do what I have within my power to stop it. Not because it's a power trip or anything of the sort. It's because it's the right thing to do. An innocent person never deserves to be assaulted or violated. I will defer back to my explaination of Switzerland and how most people think similarly to me. In that country, crime, especially violent crime is almost nonexistent. It's that way because good people don't stand by and watch bad people do bad things. 

 

I guess you missed the point. You used to seem a bit more milder (for lack of a better term).
 
I could write every word you wrote, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. I carry a gun in every place allowed (often not allowed, by accident). I also believe I would use it as well. I am not attacking you, your morals, or rights. I was trying to discuss the civility of being a person that does pull that trigger, so try not to make me sound horrible because I am not going all Rambo just itching to force feed a bunch of violent criminals an unhealthy dinner of lead.
 
If you are like me, you have thought about how it would be after the fact of (let's use the term "defending") defending another person, or even yourself. Every time I have thought about it deeply, it scares me. A lot. I know I would find it way easier to defend someone else's life than my own. If it were a family member being assaulted, I would empty the clip, reload, and do it again (okay, not really). Defending myself would be just a little bit harder ... I'm not sure what I may go through mentally after taking another persons life is worthy of saving my own life to endure.
 
The one thing that gives me reason to pause on a quick reaction when (if) happening upon a violent crime? What if the guy with the gun/bat/knife/yo-yo is the victim, or the spouse of a victim chasing the real criminal that just raped his wife (or other violent offense). You just never know what is in store, and you can't take it back. I hope if something like that ever happens to me, I pray it is 100% obvious what lead up to this moment is in fact as it appears.
 
We are cool   :yes:  ... oh ..lol, I gave up hunting a long time ago as well, just found it harder the older I got to kill something, even for food. Instead I go eat a big medium rare angus steak.
 

 

 funny, he claims that he never thought much of me anyway, which is totally untrue as he used to speak highly of me until the time that I spoke ill of his Colts, i.e. the Andrew Luck tanking thing.....ever since then, he's held a grudge....and has gone on an insult at will campaign to my posting whenever he sees fit. Didn't think I noticed that, huh? .... 

 

LoL, you are hilarious. You really think anything you post about the Colts is worthy of any form of grudge. I am far from that kind of person, Mad Dog.

 

Insult campaign? I don't even know how to do something like that. Sounds like you have experience. :woot:

 

Where I wrote ... "I never did think much of you, anyway", I had a nice little smiley right after it ... before I hit the post button I deleted it, just to leave you all ratcheted up. You can call me Incognito if you like ... wait, that would be Mr. Incognito to you.   Try not to get my panties in a bunch ... or something like that.

---

Correlation does not imply causation. The low crime rate in Switzerland has less to do with the populace and their attitude to guns and more with the fact they have an incredibly high standard of living with almost no outright poverty and a social safety net which takes away a large part of the motivation why someone would go out and rob a store.

 

Exactly, Switzerland keeps out all the undesirable elements of human nature that we welcome and breed in the US.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The US has both the most guns per capita AND the highest crime rate in the world according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That right there falsifies the notion of guns as a crime deterrent more than your "slander on poor people" and "not all poor people are criminals" arguments.

 

Poverty is more strongly linked to crime than the presence of guns as a deterrent is.

Tell me again how gun control works? Find me the cities with the toughest gun laws, now compare the crime rates. Start with Chicago, I'll wait.

 

I think the funniest part of this whole thread is that the first page is loaded with people spouting off from the keyboard without even READING what happened. "They were shot in the back" "Nothing can justify taking a life" Blah. 

 

I carry every day. I also pray every time I see my weapons that I never have to use them for their intended purpose. If I ever have to it will be justified. I wouldn't enjoy killing another person. I hunt, I kill large animals, every time I do, I feel a little sick but, it's part of life. I'm thankful for the meat that will be provided by that animal.

 

I wish all the anti-gun people had to wear a uniform. That way the criminals would know who to rob, they wouldn't get shot, and I wouldn't help someone wearing that uni.

 

That being said, I personally wouldn't have stopped them. I'm not a cop. If I walked in and they had their guns drawn, different story but, them leaving the store and I'm outside. Not my problem, I'll take the license plate of the get away car.

---

Tell me again how gun control works? Find me the cities with the toughest gun laws, now compare the crime rates. Start with Chicago, I'll wait.

 

I think the funniest part of this whole thread is that the first page is loaded with people spouting off from the keyboard without even READING what happened. "They were shot in the back" "Nothing can justify taking a life" Blah. 

 

I carry every day. I also pray every time I see my weapons that I never have to use them for their intended purpose. If I ever have to it will be justified. I wouldn't enjoy killing another person. I hunt, I kill large animals, every time I do, I feel a little sick but, it's part of life. I'm thankful for the meat that will be provided by that animal.

 

I wish all the anti-gun people had to wear a uniform. That way the criminals would know who to rob, they wouldn't get shot, and I wouldn't help someone wearing that uni.

 

That being said, I personally wouldn't have stopped them. I'm not a cop. If I walked in and they had their guns drawn, different story but, them leaving the store and I'm outside. Not my problem, I'll take the license plate of the get away car.

I'm talking about the link between crime and guns (as a deterrent) and the link between crime and poverty. The "guns as a deterrent" argument is insane because two of the highest gun owning nations are on the opposite ends of the spectrum as far as crime rate is concerned. If two things are on the same end of the spectrum on one issue and the opposite end on another issue, chances are that those two issues aren't related.

---

The US has both the most guns per capita AND the highest crime rate in the world according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. That right there falsifies the notion of guns as a crime deterrent more than your "slander on poor people" and "not all poor people are criminals" arguments.

 

Poverty is more strongly linked to crime than the presence of guns as a deterrent is.

 

I think you have to look deeper into the data, I know of no one that owns one gun.  Everyone I know comes in one of two categories, they either don't own a gun or they own several.  Looking at your statement with that in mind certainly would change the perception.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Tell me again how gun control works? Find me the cities with the toughest gun laws, now compare the crime rates. Start with Chicago, I'll wait.

I knew Chicago was going to show up somewhere in this thread. The reason gun control doesn't work in Chicago is because there is very little gun control in the surrounding areas. Gun control doesn't help if you can drive 30 minutes and still get a perfectly legal gun. It's kind of like attempting to reduce the smell in a public toilet by saying people can no longer poop in the middle stall, the stench is going to come in from the other stalls.

 

A better comparison would be the US vs Europe, and the US ranks worse in almost every major crime statistic, especially gun violence.

---

 

That being said, I personally wouldn't have stopped them. I'm not a cop. If I walked in and they had their guns drawn, different story but, them leaving the store and I'm outside. Not my problem, I'll take the license plate of the get away car.

 +1

If you are like me, you have thought about how it would be after the fact of (let's use the term "defending") defending another person, or even yourself. Every time I have thought about it deeply, it scares me. A lot. I know I would find it way easier to defend someone else's life than my own. If it were a family member being assaulted, I would empty the clip, reload, and do it again (okay, not really). Defending myself would be just a little bit harder ... I'm not sure what I may go through mentally after taking another persons life is worthy of saving my own life to endure.
 
The one thing that gives me reason to pause on a quick reaction when (if) happening upon a violent crime? What if the guy with the gun/bat/knife/yo-yo is the victim, or the spouse of a victim chasing the real criminal that just raped his wife (or other violent offense). You just never know what is in store, and you can't take it back. I hope if something like that ever happens to me, I pray it is 100% obvious what lead up to this moment is in fact as it appears.

People may think they'll know they'll feel after shooting someone, but it's impossible to know unless you've done it. You may be completely justified under a specific set of circumstances, but you will feel something afterwords, any human being would. During, feelings don't come into play. You process a lot of info under stress then act. However, even years after a "clean" shoot, feelings of anger, remorse and guilt are normal.

---

Kaishakunin for hire.

* (disclaimer) If you think I'm serious, hit yourself in the face w/ a hammer.

 

I think you have to look deeper into the data, I know of no one that owns one gun.  Everyone I know comes in one of two categories, they either don't own a gun or they own several.  Looking at your statement with that in mind certainly would change the perception.

Do people that live in Switzerland only own a single gun?

---

Do people that live in Switzerland only own a single gun?

No idea.  My point was that data, any data on the surface will mean different things depending on how deep you dig into the data.

I will say that in my opinion guns are not the problem, but the attitude and intent of the person holding one is.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I knew Chicago was going to show up somewhere in this thread. The reason gun control doesn't work in Chicago is because there is very little gun control in the surrounding areas. Gun control doesn't help if you can drive 30 minutes and still get a perfectly legal gun. It's kind of like attempting to reduce the smell in a public toilet by saying people can no longer poop in the middle stall, the stench is going to come in from the other stalls.

 

A better comparison would be the US vs Europe, and the US ranks worse in almost every major crime statistic, especially gun violence.

Your argument about Chicago is so void of substance, it's rediculous.

 

Criminals don't give a rat's rear about getting a perfectly legal gun. They never have and they never will. Now, where your argument falls completely and utterly flat on it's face was what you said in your own words. Yes, people can drive 30 minutes from Chicago (not in traffic, btw...) and get a gun legally. This begs the question: why do the criminals go back to Chicago after getting their guns? Why not run wild on the area that they're already in? I'll tell you why? The criminal prefers to not be confronted by a legitimate threat to their objective. That's why violence is worse in cities like Chicago and Washington DC. Criminals know that the odds of running into resistance are a lot less. Criminals are lazy, which is a huge reason why they're criminals to begin with. Working for a living and doing things the right way is just too much for them. They need motivation to go back into a gun restricted area to commit crimes, rather than committing those crimes in a gun friendly zone. The payoff is that they will meet less resistance. They can perform their crimes and not have to worry as much about their own well being.

 

I have lived in both Chicago and Washington DC. I know firsthand what restrictive gun laws do. You have zero firsthand experience in either city, so you are going off something other than experience. Whatever that may be is flat out wrong. Regional studies have proven that areas with restrictive gun laws have much worse violent crime than areas with gun friendly laws.

 

Also, care to explain why so many of the Swiss carry guns if it's the pristine utopia that you claim it to be? I agree that it has social structures that other places do not, btw, but I completely disagree as to why those people carry guns. I know a Swiss family and speak to them once or twice a month. I know that they say that they carry guns because while crime is low where they live, it is still present. They don't want to be the rare victim, and intend not to be.

 

Your argument is flawed on multiple levels, and frankly you're not in a position to speak intelligently about it. Not because you are you, but because where you live and your environment. You simply don't have enough life experience dealing with this kind of thing to speak reasonably about it.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I knew Chicago was going to show up somewhere in this thread. The reason gun control doesn't work in Chicago is because there is very little gun control in the surrounding areas. Gun control doesn't help if you can drive 30 minutes and still get a perfectly legal gun. It's kind of like attempting to reduce the smell in a public toilet by saying people can no longer poop in the middle stall, the stench is going to come in from the other stalls.

 

A better comparison would be the US vs Europe, and the US ranks worse in almost every major crime statistic, especially gun violence.

 

And many other major cities in the U.S. aren't surrounded by areas with lighter gun control?  Better tell that to every city in the Southwest, every city in the Midwest, every city in the South, and most along the Eastern seaboard.  

---

Your argument about Chicago is so void of substance, it's rediculous.

 

Criminals don't give a rat's rear about getting a perfectly legal gun. They never have and they never will. Now, where your argument falls completely and utterly flat on it's face was what you said in your own words. Yes, people can drive 30 minutes from Chicago (not in traffic, btw...) and get a gun legally. This begs the question: why do the criminals go back to Chicago after getting their guns? Why not run wild on the area that they're already in? I'll tell you why? The criminal prefers to not be confronted by a legitimate threat to their objective. That's why violence is worse in cities like Chicago and Washington DC. Criminals know that the odds of running into resistance are a lot less. Criminals are lazy, which is a huge reason why they're criminals to begin with. Working for a living and doing things the right way is just too much for them. They need motivation to go back into a gun restricted area to commit crimes, rather than committing those crimes in a gun friendly zone. The payoff is that they will meet less resistance. They can perform their crimes and not have to worry as much about their own well being.

 

I have lived in both Chicago and Washington DC. I know firsthand what restrictive gun laws do. You have zero firsthand experience in either city, so you are going off something other than experience. Whatever that may be is flat out wrong. Regional studies have proven that areas with restrictive gun laws have much worse violent crime than areas with gun friendly laws.

 

Also, care to explain why so many of the Swiss carry guns if it's the pristine utopia that you claim it to be? I agree that it has social structures that other places do not, btw, but I completely disagree as to why those people carry guns. I know a Swiss family and speak to them once or twice a month. I know that they say that they carry guns because while crime is low where they live, it is still present. They don't want to be the rare victim, and intend not to be.

 

Your argument is flawed on multiple levels, and frankly you're not in a position to speak intelligently about it. Not because you are you, but because where you live and your environment. You simply don't have enough life experience dealing with this kind of thing to speak reasonably about it.

 

Chicago and D.C. - agreed.  Another good example is that motorcycle gang assault in NYC.  What are the chances of something like that happening in the South, or any city that allows CCW permits?  Much less.

---