• 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

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.
" cap to crocs."

That's a good one.
 
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.
I think they should serve for a while at first before being able to carry a firearm. Partnered with an armed officer for safety.

Force them to learn to deal with situations in ways other than bullying backed by the potential for lethal violence.
 
In other words you still hold that AR-15s are "assault weapons" because of appearance and shoot more or rather hold more than 10 rounds in a standard magazine. "Assault weapons" are a myth designed to confuse the people that don't know the difference between those and actual assault rifles.
blah, blah--------just get regulations that keep these out of the hands of wackos............
 
Good stat

Out of interest, where did you get it ?
A general search on DuckDuckGo concerning self defense and those who carry; they seem to come up with less marketing and sales content than Google.
 
So I protect some unarmed person being attacked? I would assume I would become a target if said target wasn't neutralized ASAP.
As a 3rd party to a crime, I suspect using deadly force against someone targeting someone else would be very thin ice. In this type of a situation, it would likely only stand up in court if the perp actually shot their victim, and was not just waving a gun around for intimidation.

It may seem to be the best thing to do at the moment, but taking the life of another, even when 100% justified, is the thing nightmares and psychosis is made of; worse yet if left to contemplate in prison for 10 to life...
 
As a 3rd party to a crime, I suspect using deadly force against someone targeting someone else would be very thin ice. In this type of a situation, it would likely only stand up in court if the perp actually shot their victim, and was not just waving a gun around for intimidation.

It may seem to be the best thing to do at the moment, but taking the life of another, even when 100% justified, is the thing nightmares and psychosis is made of; worse yet if left to contemplate in prison for 10 to life...
Don't worry I know the difference between waving around to intimidate and actually a threat on his or her life. How do I know? I just do. You carry you know.
 
blah, blah--------just get regulations that keep these out of the hands of wackos............
There are regs. the 1934 NFA banning them (assault rifles) unless you jump through their hoops and pay the silly ass tax.
 
Last edited:
I can't wait to see what you think would work.
What the baby brigade would love is a 2023 YGFFA. YOU. GOT. ****ED. FIREARM. ACT. and if you were a good little boy or girl you could maybe have a DBL shotgun. And real good one, a muzzle loader .50 exemption. Might shoot down an airliner.
 
Much stricter wait periods for certain weapons; liability laws stricter, etc............
Would mass murders be concerned about liability or waiting periods?
 
Well, there is this - the mere presence of a gun increases the likelihood of a shooting incident:

people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens

Laughable "study", two glaring problems . . .

No differentiation was attempted to identify criminals shooting each other from citizens legally (permitted) carrying (other than eliminating all possible subjects under 21 y.o., because they cannot legally own / possess a firearm).

The authors made the ridiculous assumption that all citizens across the entire city at all times all shared the same risk of gun injury.
 
So what, they carried guns and got shot

How do the people who shot them differ from the people who rob other demographics ?

The point of the study (and the poster's point in citing it) was to discourage the carriage of arms by law-abiding citizens only intending to protect themselves.
 
The point of the study (and the poster's point in citing it) was to discourage the carriage of arms by law-abiding citizens only intending to protect themselves.
You mean the gangbusters in Philly didn't read and heed it?
 
You mean the gangbusters in Philly didn't read and heed it?

At least back then Philly had a real DA and gun criminals would be prosecuted.

Today, cops are making more gun arrests than ever but Philly's most dangerous gun criminals are virtually guaranteed a free pass from the DA; Krasner has fully retreated from prosecuting carry by a prohibited person and shootings / murders follow . . . As 70%+ cases are withdrawn, the result is 225+ shootings a month . . .


FbDAZShaIAAxwxs.png

 
Last edited:
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.
You just make stuff up huh?

Or is it that you just believe made up stuff on right wing websites?
 
Back
Top Bottom