wake_up_bomb wrote:
wub if that's how you feel than guns do make us safer because other people have them.

yeah i watched it. the fat dude at the end had hundreds of hours so he said. and someone else shot airsoft guns lol. thats like claiming you can defeat the russian navy cos you played battleships.

if someone bursts into a room and starts to shoot everyone, people panic.
thats the only thing that can be inferred from the video.

.......... wrote: Obviously offensive weapons don't make us 'safer', whether you're talking about guns, knives or nuclear weapons. This is self-evident. However, as we know for a fact that all of these things exist, and will continue to exist indefinitely, there's no sense in hankering for a world that will never, and can never, exist.

Guns make the people who control the most people who own guns more saferer .

wake_up_bomb wrote:
That wasn`t a statement I made to be useful. We can I believe reduce cancer but that is another topic. Just like grizzly bears and knives are other topics.

The point I was making is that I have not called for banning guns but was addressing the suggestions in the media that the answer was concealed carry permits or arming everybody basically. I was suggesting that more guns is probably not the answer to reduce gun crime.

i-baster wrote: Would we be 'safer' if the police had more, less or the same number of guns as they do now?

batou wrote:
Well there was more to the video than that. I also provided some links to studies that go into more detail than the abc report. The video did show a firearms expert shooting himself. It also covered the psychology of having a gun pointed at you, and reaction time even in a situation where you know what is about to happen. It is just a short news report but you can look into the science behind it. I am more interested in the psychology of it than the gun debate to be honest and would if I could go back and change my op.

I also think, for what it is worth, that to discount something as propaganda just because it is on abc is just as bad as discounting something from conspiracyplanet.com.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Nobody with this stupid agenda will answer that question anymore than if you asked it of the armed forces.
They're authoritarian followers remember?

wake_up_bomb wrote:

I think that is impossible to say really.

What is the point you are trying to make?

On the one hand though the police are trained to a much higher standard than your average gun owner. Gun safety should certainly (in my view) be given to people who are going to have guns. We assume when selling guns that they will be used for "protection" by responsible adults. People with felonies are not allowed guns legally I believe. So we should certainly train those who do own guns legally, not to make them better killers but to reduce the accidents that guns can cause.

andyh wrote:
who has a stupid agenda? and what is it?

i-baster wrote:
The fact you even question this or supposedly cannot see it, only reinforces my point.
If you read the book about psych profiles of RWA's you would know.

The mantra is basically do as we say, not as we do.

i-baster wrote:
Thats perfectly logical and is the Swiss way of looking at it.

i-baster wrote: I'm not trying to make any point. When I'm making a point it will be quite clear. I'm simply asking you a direct question. It's funny how people always feel the need to duck direct questions, whether you're talking about this, or 9/11, or some other subject. If you ask me a direct question, I will answer it.

Would we be ‘safer’ if the police had:

a) more guns than they do now;
b) less guns than they do now;
c) or the same number of guns as they do now?

Quite simple, really.

well i agree with you, increase gun safety and awareness. its important to be trained how to use it. how to dismantle it, clean it, aim it, shoot it, clear it. nobody should be forced to own a gun. and nobody should be forced to not own a gun without a good reason.
i still think the video is manipulation. thats just my opinion, so im not wrong.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I didn`t duck your question. You asked a question that asks me to see an outcome in an imagined future. I asked what point you were trying to make because you asked me a loaded question. You think you know my answer and have some sort of point to make when I answer or alternatively when I do not answer. I answered. Not all answers fit your multiple choices. There is always "other".

i-baster wrote:
The 3 variables above are the only possible outcomes, same, more or less.
So yeah, you swerved

The question is basically why is authority excluded from questions about guns?

andyh wrote:

i-baster wrote:


home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

RWA= right wing authoritarians, the report specifically concentrates on the 'religious right' as seen in the US, however left wing authoritarians follow the same basic mantra.

i-baster wrote: This is also true of whether having more guns in general makes society 'safer'. You seem willing to discuss that.
I don't know your answer because you haven't given one. If there is some other option than the police having more, less or the same number of guns as they do know than I'd like to know what it is! I thought I was pretty good at mathematics, but obviously I'm missing something!

Would we be ‘safer’ if the police had:

a) more guns than they do now;
b) less guns than they do now;
c) or the same number of guns as they do now?

Simple question. I can give you my answer quite easily just as I did when you asked me a direct question.

andyh wrote:
I didn`t swerve I just do not know and could not say. What would your answer be if it is such an easy question to answer?

Who excluded authority exactly? With a country like America it would be rather foolish to remove guns. There are areas of the states where the criminals are better armed than the cops and perhaps that is changing with the militarization of the police. If you are policing an area then it would make sense to do your best to have the same or better fire power than potential criminals just as people who buy a gun for defense would probably want something equal or better than a potential home invader, rapist etc. Again the main difference is that police are better trained with their weapons and have tighter rules regulating their use. So the issue of arming police is a separate issue. Just as police corruption etc are a different topic. It is not about blindly following authority. Having an AK47 is not going to give me freedom from government any more than growing my own tomatoes will.