Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Straw Man

(6,771 posts)
76. Further clarification.
Sat Sep 12, 2015, 06:32 PM
Sep 2015
Wrong! "Suggests" to you perhaps. My response is purely logical. The stats show that where guns are not allowed in public the shootings are a tiny fraction of those in the US. Nothing emotional about it. Pure reasoning.

Pure, flawed reasoning because it ignores other all possible causes, as well as overlooking the obvious fact that those who are perpetrating the bulk of the gun violence in the US are already barred from possessing guns at all, much less carrying them in public.

You are "baffled" because you assume that I think such nonsense. One always has the right to defend oneself. How one chooses to do that is a whole other question. Do you think that the citizens of the rest of the world don't have a right to defend themselves because of strict laws regarding carry?

Allow me to clarify: You would restrict the rights of the weak, the infirm, and the elderly to effectively defend themselves against younger, stronger predators outside the home. And yes, I think that citizens of nations that ban the carry of firearms are being denied a fundamental human right.

Which criminals are you talking about? Remember, I support home defense.

The ones that prefer stick-ups to home invasions and couldn't care less about laws regarding public carry -- in fact, would be in favor of any such law that makes it easier and safer for them to ply their criminal trade.

This is true, though England is not the only country. In general, LE is trusted to take care of problems that require the use of firearms. This is not an issue in Europe. The US is a whole other case. The judicial system plays a major part. Very few criminals resort to using firearms in Europe, because the price they pay in terms of sentencing is too high.

What other countries don't routinely arm their regular police? I don't know of any in Europe. If you're calling for higher penalties for criminal use of firearms, I am 100% in agreement. When there are multiple charges, the gun charge is too often plea-bargained away in the US, resulting in the bizarre paradox of career armed criminals with no gun convictions on their sheets.

I am not "scapegoating" anyone. I am not even blaming anyone. I'm making an observation from my POV, which is as valid as you decide.

I didn't say you were. What I said is that you were describing such scapegoating. I find it deplorable: both unjust and ineffective. How about you?
The question I have is Duckhunter935 Sep 2015 #1
Very good questions SwissTony Sep 2015 #2
I have a bad connection Duckhunter935 Sep 2015 #3
Fair enough. SwissTony Sep 2015 #4
When you find the actual numbers , please share Hangingon Sep 2015 #7
Oh yeah? sarisataka Sep 2015 #29
Do they still allow CC, and AR type firearms and magazines. ileus Sep 2015 #5
Oh, boy. "a fundamental right to self defense with firearms" SwissTony Sep 2015 #6
but you had gun control before gejohnston Sep 2015 #8
We had gun control, but John Howard tightened things up. SwissTony Sep 2015 #13
the fact that Howard gejohnston Sep 2015 #24
it was undemocratic in that he didn't put the question to a formal referendum. SwissTony Sep 2015 #26
because you wanted it or you were manipulated to wanting it gejohnston Sep 2015 #28
Post Script gejohnston Sep 2015 #30
FFS, do you really claim that knife and gun are the same in a mass murder? Which would you.... Logical Sep 2015 #31
The worst is arson. gejohnston Sep 2015 #32
Worst? No, but much easier. Wow, you are not a deep thinker I assume. nt Logical Sep 2015 #33
I was thinking more in gejohnston Sep 2015 #34
2 things discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2015 #9
I'm sorry to say I probably agree with point 1. SwissTony Sep 2015 #15
About that... beevul Sep 2015 #19
A few more things discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2015 #35
people only attack with firearms and in equal numbers and strength? ileus Sep 2015 #10
Sorry, mate. i don't know what you're saying here. n/t SwissTony Sep 2015 #16
He's saying - Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #46
He's saying "Paranoia rules!" Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #55
Are you saying all confrontations favor or are equal to the capabilities of the victim? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #56
Of course confrontations happen Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #57
"It's how we deal with them that determines what kind of society we live in." Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #58
No, but I think the fear of them should be dealt with in the appropriate way Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #59
People make all sort of preparations for all sorts unfortunate events. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #60
I have no emotional response to guns, rational or irrational. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #61
It's definitely irrational if you think criminals don't strike in public. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #62
Then we have a very different idea of what is rational. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #64
What is reasonable about demanding people not defend themselves outside their homes? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #66
Where did I say you should not defend yourself outside the home? Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #68
The problem is -- Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #71
And my point is... Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #74
controllers want prohibition for its own sake gejohnston Sep 2015 #77
"If the US wants to remain credible in terms of basic societal norms..." Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #79
Wow, I guess I'm learning something new every day Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #81
I'm aware of the Magna Carta and ancient democracies Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #86
You are "aware" of Magna Carta? Well, say no more. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #89
It's amusing that you can fabricate so many things about what freedom is or isn't and yet Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #96
Rationality and emotion. Straw Man Sep 2015 #63
Then let me clarify Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #65
"How one chooses to do that is a whole other question." Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #67
OK I think we're done here Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #69
Explain how there is an ounce of difference about how innocent people Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #70
It only makes a difference if you care about what kind of society you want to live in Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #72
personally, gejohnston Sep 2015 #75
That's a meaningless statement. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #78
Not at all. I don't give a shit if you all carry guns. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #80
For someone who doesn't care Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #85
your stats are not only wrong gejohnston Sep 2015 #73
Further clarification. Straw Man Sep 2015 #76
You seem determined to paint me as some kind of controller. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #82
This is what you, a subject of the crown, want. oneshooter Sep 2015 #83
Thank you for letting me know what I want Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #84
You paint yourself ... Straw Man Sep 2015 #87
Right! Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #90
When the countries in Europe, including the UK, started gejohnston Sep 2015 #88
I could buy a gun tomorrow legally Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #91
Several questions. Straw Man Sep 2015 #92
Italy Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #93
you realize many of the laws are hold overs from gejohnston Sep 2015 #95
Actually, the laws are pretty new and constantly evolving. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #98
there have been changes, gejohnston Sep 2015 #100
Lots of things go back to the time of Il Duce Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #102
the hunting regulation is common in the States gejohnston Sep 2015 #105
Ah, Italy. Straw Man Sep 2015 #97
Not anyone can walk in and buy a gun Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #101
sorry, wrong again gejohnston Sep 2015 #104
Anyone living in the country should have equal rights in terms of self defense Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #106
what evidence do you have race is the reason? gejohnston Sep 2015 #108
These stunts exemplify the reality. Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #110
neither gejohnston Sep 2015 #111
Sorry, not familiar with Air Strip One or Piers Morgan Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #115
Never read 1984? gejohnston Sep 2015 #119
Yes I read 1984 Starboard Tack Sep 2015 #120
hatred towards Obama has little to do with race gejohnston Sep 2015 #121
You haven't answered ... Straw Man Sep 2015 #107
rights should not be up for public debate gejohnston Sep 2015 #94
Do you know how many guns have been confiscated from the total in the country? Eleanors38 Sep 2015 #12
I have no information on that subject, but it was a pretty impressive number SwissTony Sep 2015 #18
Regarding Australia... benEzra Sep 2015 #11
your common misconceptions jimmy the one Sep 2015 #14
jimmy the wizard of OZ jimmy the one Sep 2015 #20
your common misconception, #2 jimmy the one Sep 2015 #17
First things first, James. We have unfinished business, you and I. beevul Sep 2015 #21
Pew's new poll! jimmy the one Sep 2015 #22
I'll take that as a concession. beevul Sep 2015 #23
The pro-gun regulars also don't defend those who work against Democrats seeking reelection... friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #25
Exactly. N/T beevul Sep 2015 #27
gun retrieval, not confiscation jimmy the one Sep 2015 #36
Says you. beevul Sep 2015 #37
This is the same person that finds it acceptable to attack Dems seeking reelection: friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #38
Yup. It is truly astonishing. beevul Sep 2015 #41
compensation in the buyback jimmy the one Sep 2015 #42
The confiscation, you mean. beevul Sep 2015 #44
So if some future president abolished voting but paid each voter $475 you'd be okay with that. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #47
Tapdance all you want, it was and is confiscation: friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #39
You are also using a cheap and obvious appeal to authority friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #40
go fetch jimmy the one Sep 2015 #43
"bring back to a more satisfactory state" Back to something that did not exist previously... friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #45
Did the owners have the right to decline? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #48
confiscatio jimmy the one Sep 2015 #49
they offered compensation only because gejohnston Sep 2015 #50
If the owners had no choice and the government did not own the property then it was confiscation. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #51
nero & caligula, tyrants? jimmy the one Sep 2015 #54
holy sh.. beergood Sep 2015 #99
make your argument or rebuttal then jimmy the one Sep 2015 #103
So you cite Nero and Caligula. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #109
revise to worst ROMAN dictators in history jimmy the one Sep 2015 #112
Speaking of Roman dictators sarisataka Sep 2015 #113
not bankrupt, your post is jimmy the one Sep 2015 #116
Words usually have several definitions sarisataka Sep 2015 #118
more pathetic jimmy the one Sep 2015 #122
I found the use of the word sarisataka Sep 2015 #123
Just...this. beevul Sep 2015 #124
Bankruptcy. Straw Man Sep 2015 #125
As I said, weirder and weirder. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2015 #114
some of us have too much time on our hands n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2015 #117
Nothing so melodramatic or biased, james... beevul Sep 2015 #52
"Icon and I simply know how to read a dictionary..." No doubt James can also read quite well friendly_iconoclast Sep 2015 #53
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Xpost: Austrailian gun co...»Reply #76