• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Not Arming Yourself So Bad Guys Wont Arm Themselves

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
12,099
Reaction score
3,439
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
 
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.
 
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
The gun control crowd never said that---------------your credibility is gone before you start......
 
I don't know if people are saying that exactly but I do believe we live in an age of plenty where people are more than happy to outsource their own personal safety.
 
never saw it-------but even if it was posted doesn't mean it represents a "gun control crowd"...........................case closed......
It certainly represents some of the gun control crowd.
 
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.

Why write such trash?
Is this a MAGA Demand?
Make moronic posts or be banned from the cult?

Good God, what an aweful cult.
 
It is indeed a spurious argument, individual on individual. How is a criminal to know if their victim is armed?

Generalized though, the argument does make sense. Committing a crime without a gun is a lesser legal risk, and if gun ownership was very rare then burglars and muggers would be far less likely to carry. And that would be good, because fewer people would die.

Police not regularly carrying guns is worth considering as policy. If they didn't pose a risk to the lives of criminals, the latter would be far less inclined to shoot at them. In 2021, 73 officers were murdered, but 1,055 members of the public were killed by police. It's pretty obvious who is shooting first.
 
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
I have been armed for 60 years, and so far I have found no evidence that any of the deer, elk, moose, or caribou that I have shot have armed themselves. I don't care if someone else is armed or not, it will not stop me from carrying firearms. Compared to what I carry on a regular basis, the police are woefully under armed and wouldn't be of any use to me even if they were on the scene at the time.
 
It is indeed a spurious argument, individual on individual. How is a criminal to know if their victim is armed?

Generalized though, the argument does make sense. Committing a crime without a gun is a lesser legal risk, and if gun ownership was very rare then burglars and muggers would be far less likely to carry. And that would be good, because fewer people would die.

Police not regularly carrying guns is worth considering as policy. If they didn't pose a risk to the lives of criminals, the latter would be far less inclined to shoot at them. In 2021, 73 officers were murdered, but 1,055 members of the public were killed by police. It's pretty obvious who is shooting first.
Your first paragraph says it all

“Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed”!

/thread
 
Your first paragraph says it all

“Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed”!

/thread
But if we don't advertise that schools are "Gun Free Zones" how will the nutjobs know that it is safe for them to slaughter children en mass?

Which is proof that Democrats want as many children to die as possible.
 
Your first paragraph says it all

“Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed”!

/thread

Not /thread. The US has appallingly high rates of imprisonment, and quite high rates of violent crime despite that.

Clearly "criminals won't crim because they don't know who is armed" isn't working.
 
I have been armed for 60 years, and so far I have found no evidence that any of the deer, elk, moose, or caribou that I have shot have armed themselves.
But they are armed, particularly the moose, they've got these big heavy horns, you wouldn't want to be rammed with them.
I don't care if someone else is armed or not, it will not stop me from carrying firearms. Compared to what I carry on a regular basis, the police are woefully under armed and wouldn't be of any use to me even if they were on the scene at the time.
Police have their strength in numbers, in man power. Where there's one police officer there's more, many more.

And police officer do have extra fire power, they keep bigger guns in their squad cars.
 
But they are armed, particularly the moose, they've got these big heavy horns, you wouldn't want to be rammed with them.
It isn't their antlers that concern me. It is their attitude and their size that concerns me. Moose are psychotic, and will attack without cause. A full grown bull moose will also weight more than 1,500 pounds, since they are the second largest critter on the North American continent, just after the bison. More Alaskans are killed by being stomped to death by moose than are killed by all other wildlife combined.

I was attacked once while fishing in the Little Susitna River, about 15 minutes from where I live. I was standing knee deep in the river when a bull moose started to cross the river about 100 yards down stream. It looked in my direction and apparently did not like what it saw, because the next thing it did was to start running in my direction. Moose are not particular fast, so I got out of the river, put down my fishing pole, picked up my Mossberg Model 500, and put a sizable spruce tree between me and the charging moose.

By the time the moose arrived he was unable to get to me, and I never felt that my life was in jeopardy while I kept that tree between me and him. He eventually figured out that he would never be able to get to me, so he left after what seemed like a few minutes, but it was probably less.

That was the only time I have ever been attacked by wildlife in the 31 years I have lived in Alaska. I have had dozens of bear encounters, but all of them by non-aggressive bears. That moose was the first aggressive critter I encountered.

Police have their strength in numbers, in man power. Where there's one police officer there's more, many more.

And police officer do have extra fire power, they keep bigger guns in their squad cars.
As the adage goes, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." If people had to rely on the police to protect them there would be many more dead than there are now. The police are also ill-equipped to deal with large game. Their shotguns are loaded with non-lethal ammunition, not the .65 cal. slugs that I use.
 
One of the most pathetic reasons why you shouldn't arm yourself according to the gun control crowd is because if you do arm yourself the bad guys will arm themselves too so they will be more evenly matched when they commit crime, well if that is a good idea not to arm yourself then maybe the police and military shouldn't arm themselves either for that same reason, if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.

I honestly don't think much about bad guys unless I see a thread by the gun nuts.
 
I've never heard anyone ever suggest that as a good reason to not be armed. Not even once. Sounds like a straw man from cap to crocs.
Did DebateChallenge say where? As in concealed carry or having a firearm at home and you've heard ad nauseam about that one, so where was he talking about that dumbass reason?

 
The gun control crowd never said that---------------your credibility is gone before you start......
So why are the anti gunners always pissing and moaning about being armed in any fashion? Concealed, at home where ever.
 
So you think you can concoct a thoughtful OP by bottom feeding some silly comment here on DP? Really?!
"Silly comment" I won't go back and show all the threads and post's where the usual suspects go on and on about it, that's your job since you're the one pissing about it. You say "silly comment" like it was a one off thing.
 
It isn't their antlers that concern me. It is their attitude and their size that concerns me. Moose are psychotic, and will attack without cause. A full grown bull moose will also weight more than 1,500 pounds, since they are the second largest critter on the North American continent, just after the bison. More Alaskans are killed by being stomped to death by moose than are killed by all other wildlife combined.
So I would definitely say moose are "armed."
As the adage goes, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away." If people had to rely on the police to protect them there would be many more dead than there are now. The police are also ill-equipped to deal with large game. Their shotguns are loaded with non-lethal ammunition, not the .65 cal. slugs that I use.
To the best of my knowledge the police use shells with buckshot in their shotguns which makes sense as such shot can penetrate car doors which police sometimes have to do. For less lethal weapons (yes its less lethal not non lethal since practically anything can kill) they use stuff such as teargas and tasers.

And if police ever do go up against large game Im sure they would carry weapons suitable for that, there are police officers that hunt.
 
So why are the anti gunners always pissing and moaning about being armed in any fashion? Concealed, at home where ever.
Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................
 
Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................
Indeed. Not only have I never met anyone who wants "no guns at all", it's not even an achievable goal. There are literally millions of guns across the country that authorities don't even know about, and even if you could account for them, you could never get law enforcement to take them away. The government coming to take people's firearms away is nothing but ridiculous paranoia on the part of gun owners.
 
Extremely few if any like that. Most of them just want common sense regulations on assault weapons, etc...... I know of no one who wants "no guns" at all......................
What are "common sense" regulations on "assault weapons"?

What are "assault weapons"?

What does it take for a class of firearms to be an "assault weapon"?
 
Back
Top Bottom